Edjuan v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department of Martinez Detention Facility et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Granting Plaintiff extension of time to file overdue documents. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 11-04728 YGR (PR) EDJUAN C. SCOTT, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OVERDUE DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, vs. 14 DEPUTY COUNTY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. / 17 18 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. 19 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose 20 his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 21 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in 22 § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) 23 (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only 24 in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the 25 likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se 26 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 27 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of 28 1 these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under 2 § 1915. See id. 3 The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Plaintiff to court appointed counsel 4 do not exist. The likelihood of Plaintiff's success on the merits cannot be ascertained at this point in 5 the proceedings, and the legal issues are not complex. Accordingly, the request for appointment of 6 counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 7 Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and his written response to the Court's April 24, 2012 Order to Show Cause are presently overdue. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff an 9 extension of time in which to file the aforementioned documents. The time in which Plaintiff may 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and his written response to the order to show 11 cause will be extended up to and including twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order. 12 13 If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 14 This Order terminates Docket no. 25. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: January 16, 2013 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Scott4728.grantEOT-oppn&denyATTY.frm 2

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?