Chau v. Young et al

Filing 12

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES AND DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 6 9 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

EDDIE CHAU,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 13-764 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES
AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL

v.
J. YOUNG; et al.,
Defendants.
/

14

Defendants have filed an ex parte request for an extension of time to file a dispositive

15

motion. Upon due consideration of the request and the accompanying declaration of attorney

16

Kevin Voth, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket # 9.) The court now sets the following

17

new briefing schedule for dispositive motions: Defendants must file and serve their dispositive

18

motion no later than October 11, 2013. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his

19

opposition to the dispositive motion no later than November 8, 2013. Defendants must file and

20

serve their reply brief (if any) no later than November 22, 2013.

21

Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district

22

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an

23

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

24

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits

25

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

26

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together

27

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances

28

1

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of

2

counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 6.)
Finally, the court wants to clarify a point that plaintiff has misunderstood. The order of

4

service set a briefing schedule that called for defendants to file a motion for summary judgment

5

or other dispositive motion by July 12, 2013, approximately ten weeks after the order of service.

6

In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff wrote that the court's order of service

7

"compel[led] resolution of the case in 60 days." Docket # 6, p. 2. Plaintiff misunderstands the

8

situation. The court sets a deadline for a dispositive motion in order to move a case toward

9

resolution, but does not require that the case be resolved in 60 days. In the absence of any

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

deadlines, a defendant might do nothing and a pro se plaintiff might not know what to do to

11

move his action forward; such an action would simply linger on the court's docket unresolved

12

and benefitting no one. Deadlines tend to make the litigants focus on resolving the case, one

13

way or another. Not only is there no requirement that a case be resolved in 60 days, if a

14

dispositive motion is denied, a case may be referred for settlement proceedings, set for trial or

15

have other activity. And, of course, reasonable requests for extensions of time during any of

16

these events are always considered. There simply is no set time limit for the life of a case; it will

17

take as long as it takes, but the court does try to keep it moving toward some sort of resolution

18

– whether that resolution be by dispositive motion, by trial, or by settlement.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2