Daniels v. Director of Corrections et al

Filing 59

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte Denying 57 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; Granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GENE DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN EVANS, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA *E-FILED - 12/9/09*

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 08-3780 RMW (PR) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Docket No. 57)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he has been on lockdown for the better part of three months and has had difficulty accessing the law library to prepare his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file a an opposition to defendants' motion is GRANTED. However, because plaintiff has now had more than four months to prepare an opposition, any further requests for an extension of time are not favored. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment no later than thirty (30) days from the filing date of this order. Defendants shall file a reply brief within 15 days of the date any opposition is filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED for want of exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lassiter v.
Order Granting Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of Time; Denying Appointment of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.08\Daniels780eotandatty.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case). The court denied plaintiff's first request for appointment of counsel on November 20, 2008, noting that the issues in this case were not particularly complex and plaintiff had thus far been able to adequately present his claims. Since then, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which included additional facts in support of his claim as well as additional defendants. It appears plaintiff is still able to adequately present his case. Accordingly, this denial is again without prejudice to the court's sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. This order terminates docket no. 57. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 12/8/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

Order Granting Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of Time; Denying Appointment of Counsel P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.08\Daniels780eotandatty.wpd 2