Ellis v. Navarro et al

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel and REFERRING Case to Federal Pro Bono Project and Setting Briefing. Tom Loran, Esq. and Marc Axelbaum, Esq. are APPOINTED as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff. The due date for Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants dispositive motion is EXTENDED to 06/18/10. Defendants' Reply to Opposition due (15) fifteen-days after filing date of Opposition. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2010) Modified on 3/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

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 v. A. NAVARRO, et al., Defendants. / Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. The appointment of counsel is a matter for the Court's discretion, to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force against him in an incident on August 14, 2006, and that he suffered extensive injuries as a result of this incident. In an Order dated September 30, 2009, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Navarro, Juarez and Gardner, as well as cognizable First Amendment claim against Defendant Wilber for attempting to stifle Plaintiff's administrative grievances related to the August 14, 2006 incident. The circumstances surrounding the allegations relating to the amount of force used by Defendants Navarro, Juarez and Gardner, as well as the actions of Defendant Wilber in violating Plaintiff's right to access to the courts, are critical to determining the viability of Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, Plaintiff's evidence as to the excessive force claim will largely consist of his version of the events. Now pending before this Court is Defendants' dispositive motion, which was filed on March 19, 2010. At this time, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist which warrant the appointment of counsel to assist Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 24) is GRANTED. NICHOLAS BART ELLIS, Plaintiff, No. C 07-5126 SBA (pr) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; REFERRING CASE TO FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT; APPOINTING COUNSEL; AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

The Court having determined that it would be beneficial to have counsel assist Plaintiff in this matter and having located volunteer counsel willing to be appointed to represent Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Navarro, Juarez, Gardner and Wilber shall be referred to the Court's Federal Pro Bono Project, and that Tom Loran, Esq. (SBN 95255) and Marc Axelbaum, Esq. (SBN 209855) of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP are appointed as counsel for Plaintiff in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Court's Federal Pro Bono Project guidelines. The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Loran and Mr. Axelbaum at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, California 94120-7880. The Clerk of the Court shall also send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, and to Defendants' counsel. Because Mr. Loran and Mr. Axelbaum have just been appointed to represent Plaintiff in this action, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. The time in which Plaintiff may file an opposition will be extended up to and including June 18, 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. Any further requests for extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is issued. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the deadline sought to be extended. This Order terminates Docket no. 24. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 3/23/10 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Ellis5126.GrantATTY&ApptATTY.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 NICHOLAS BART ELLIS, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT A. NAVARRO et al, Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-05126 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 March 24, 2010, 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.

MR. LORAN MR. AXELBAUM PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP P.O. BOX 7880 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120-7880 Nicholas Bart Ellis K-16024 Pelcian Bay State Prison P.O. Box 7500 Crescent City, CA 95532 Dated: March 24, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Ellis5126.GrantATTY&ApptATTY.frm 3