Simental v. Adams et al

Filing 28

ORDER 21 22 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RUDY SIMENTAL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-00801-SI
ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22
NANCY ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

The court recently referred this action for a settlement conference set to take place in
Sacramento on November 9, 2017.

15

Plaintiff has filed a motion for assignment of the action to an ADR mediation program and

16

to stay discovery. (Docket No. 21.) The request for assignment to an ADR mediation program is

17

DISMISSED as moot because the court already referred the action for a settlement conference.

18

With regard to discovery, plaintiff explained that he wants a stay of discovery to avoid his

19

deposition set for October 13. His motion was not mailed until the day before the deposition was

20

set to occur and was not filed at the court until a few days thereafter. His desire to avoid the

21

deposition now appears to be a moot point.

22

discovery, or shown a need for a stay of discovery at this point. Plaintiff’s motion to stay

23

discovery therefore is DENIED. (Docket No. 21.)

Plaintiff has not identified any other pending

24

Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel to represent him in this action. A district

25

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

26

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

27

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

the appointment of counsel are not evident at this time. The motion for appointment of counsel is

4

DENIED. (Docket No. 22.)

5

Several of plaintiff’s filings have contained single-spaced typing. The court accepts typed

6

as well as handwritten documents from pro se litigants, but does require that they be double-

7

spaced because the court reads hundreds of pages of documents each week. All future filings from

8

plaintiff must be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per page. See N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-

9

4(c)(2) (“Text must appear on one side only and must be double-spaced with no more than 28

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

lines per page.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 26, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2