Gray v. Lewis et al

Filing 31

SCHEDULING ORDER 30 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BERNARDOS GRAY, JR.,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 13-4929 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
G. D. LEWIS; et al.,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14
15

Bernardos Gray, Jr. filed this pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

16

alleging violations of his religious freedom rights. The court reviewed the complaint, found that

17

it stated cognizable claims, ordered service of process on six defendants, and set a briefing

18

schedule for dispositive motions. Plaintiff then filed a motion to amend, indicating he wanted

19

to file an amended complaint. The court granted him leave to file an amended complaint no later

20

than June 6, 2014, and stated that a new briefing schedule for dispositive motions would be set

21

if he did not file an amended complaint by that deadline. Plaintiff did not file an amended

22

complaint.

23

A month after the deadline to file an amended complaint had passed, plaintiff moved for

24

appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district court has the discretion under

25

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional

26

circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires

27

an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

28

1

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id.

2

Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a

3

request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appoint-

4

ment of counsel are not evident. Although plaintiff states he is being treated for incompetency

5

and has little access to a law library, he adequately articulated his claims in his very detailed

6

complaint, cited relevant statutes and constitutional provisions, and attached to his complaint

7

documents indicating he was able to articulate his position in the inmate appeal process. (He

8

also is actively pursuing a case with unrelated claims in the Eastern District, Gray v. Virga, E.

9

D. Cal. No. 2:12-cv-3006 KJM.) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(Docket # 30.)

11

In order to move this action toward resolution, the court sets the following new briefing

12

schedule for dispositive motions: Defendants must file and serve their dispositive motion no

13

later than October 31, 2014. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to

14

the dispositive motion no later than November 28, 2014. Defendants must file and serve their

15

reply brief (if any) no later than December 12, 2014.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2014

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2