Sandeford v. Plummer et al

Filing 59

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 58 Motion to Appoint Counsel and GRANTING Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2009) Modified on 12/22/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. v. CHARLES PLUMMER, et al., Defendants. / NAPOLEON SANDEFORD, Plaintiff, No. C 06-06794 SBA (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Here, there are no exceptional circumstances which would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims adequately pro se in light of the complexity of the issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, the issues presented in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment are straightforward. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel at this time is DENIED. The Court on its own motion GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be extended up to and including February 1, 2010. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen (15) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. This Order terminates Docket no. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 12/17/09 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Sandeford6794.DenyAtty2.frm 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NAPOLEON SANDEFORD, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES PLUMMER et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV06-06794 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on December 21, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Napoleon Sandeford AJQ254 Glen Dyer Facility 550 6th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Dated: December 21, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.06\Sandeford6794.DenyAtty2.frm 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?