Moore v. Stepp et al

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenDENYING PLAINTIFF'S 63 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY ( 55 , 64 ) MOTIONS. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MERRICK JOSE MOORE, 5 6 7 8 C 11-05395 CW (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS v. L. STEPP, et al., Defendants. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Docket Nos. 55, 63, 64 ________________________________/ 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at 14 Corcoran State Prison (CSP), filed a pro se civil rights action 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his 16 constitutional rights by correctional officers at Salinas Valley 17 State Prison (SVSP), where he was incarcerated previously. 18 On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff moved for a protective order 19 claiming that staff at CSP were retaliating against him for filing 20 this complaint against Defendants. 21 Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas who, on July 26, 2013, denied the 22 motion on the ground that the individuals Plaintiff named in his 23 motion were not Defendants in this action and, thus, the Court 24 lacked jurisdiction to issue a protective order. 25 The matter was referred to See Doc. no. 54. On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery 26 cut-off date in this case, on September 13, 2013, he moved for 27 appointment of counsel and, on September 20, 2013, he moved to 28 compel discovery. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's 1 August 2nd motion to extend the discovery cut-off date, although 2 the time to file an opposition has passed. 3 filed by Plaintiff, the Court denies his motion for appointment of 4 counsel and orders Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery 5 motions. 6 7 8 9 Having read the papers DISCUSSION I. Motion to Appoint Counsel Plaintiff argues that he requires representation by counsel because the issues in this case are complex and require United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 significant research and investigation. 11 trial will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel would 12 be better prepared to cross-examine witnesses and present 13 evidence. He also argues that a 14 The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent 15 litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial 16 court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 17 v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). 18 “exceptional circumstances” of the plaintiff seeking assistance 19 requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s 20 success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability 21 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 22 legal issues involved. 23 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant would be better 25 served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the 26 issues involved as complex. 27 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 28 Cir. 1998). Franklin A finding of the Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, Neither the need for Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 2 1 Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims effectively, 2 and the issues, at least at this stage, are not complex. 3 circumstances of this case materially change, this decision will 4 be reconsidered by the Court on its own motion. 5 motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 6 II. Discovery Motions 7 If the Therefore, the In his motion to extend the discovery cut-off date, Plaintiff 8 appears to be objecting to the Magistrate Judge's denial of a 9 protective order as well as requesting an extension of the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 discovery cut-off date. 11 to the Magistrate Judge's ruling, it is DENIED. 12 issue orders against individuals over whom it has no jurisdiction. 13 If Plaintiff believes that prison officers are committing 14 constitutional violations against him, he has the right to file a 15 separate lawsuit against them for those violations. 16 To the extent that this is an objection A court cannot Turning to Plaintiff's discovery motions, Defendants are 17 ordered to respond to them. 18 motion to compel discovery, he submits ten requests for production 19 of documents that he states he sent to Defendants on July 7, 2013, 20 but that Defendants have not responded. 21 the documents requested may be such that would be produced in the 22 ordinary course of discovery. 23 In Plaintiff's September 20, 2013 It appears that some of CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows: 25 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is Denied. 26 27 28 Doc. no. 63. 2. Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate's Judge's Order is denied. Doc. no. 64. 3 1 3. Defendants are ordered to respond to Plaintiff's discovery 2 motions within two weeks from the date of this Order. 3 may file a reply within two weeks thereafter. 4 Plaintiff 4. The date for Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' summary 5 judgment motion is VACATED. 6 for the opposition and reply when the discovery motions are 7 resolved. The Court will issue a new schedule 8 5. This Order terminates Docket no. 63. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 Dated: 10/2/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?