Haskins v. Ayers

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/6/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2010)

Haskins v. Ayers

Doc. 38

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 v. ROBERT AYERS, JR., Defendants. / LEONARD A. HASKINS, Plaintiff, No. C 08-02226 CW (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 requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. 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 Social Services,

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25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).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

Dockets.Justia.com

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

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 See id.

reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915.

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Plaintiff to court appointed counsel do not exist. The likelihood

of Plaintiff's success on the merits cannot be ascertained at this point in the proceedings, and the legal issues are not complex. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently overdue. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time

in which to file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss will be extended up to and including thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/6/2010 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 LEONARD A HASKINS, Plaintiff, v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV08-02226 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ROBERT AYERS JR et al, Defendant. /

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 October 6, 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.

Leonard A. Haskins 800 Main St., Apt. #207 Redwood City, CA 94063 Dated: October 6, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

3