Nungaray v. Rowe et al
ORDER re 26 AMENDED MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Mario Alexander Nungaray, 22 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Mario Alexander Nungaray. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 9/22/10. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2010)
Nungaray v. Rowe et al
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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARIO ALEXANDER NUNGARAY, Plaintiff, v. DR. LINDA ROWE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 09-1768 LHK (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action on April 22, 2009. On October 14, 2009, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a) and found that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim and ordered service on Defendants. The Court directed the Defendants to respond to the order of service within sixty days. On January 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a declaration for entry of default stating the Defendants failed to answer within the sixty day time frame. On February 12, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file their dispositive motion. In an order dated August 3, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion for extension of time to file their dispositive motion and denied Plaintiff's motion for default as well as his motion for appointment of counsel. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for entry of default (docket no. 21) and second and third motions for appointment of counsel. (Docket nos. 22, 26.) Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 22, 26) are DENIED for want of exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997);
Order Denying Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Plaintiff's Second Motion for Entry of Default P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.09\Nungaray768def.atty2.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
see also Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex, and Plaintiff has thus far been able to adequately present his claims. This denial is without prejudice to the Court's sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. Plaintiff's second request for entry of default (docket no. 21) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court's August 3, 2010 order. This order terminates docket nos. 21, 22 and 26. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 9/22/2010 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge
Order Denying Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Denying Plaintiff's Second Motion for Entry of Default 2 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.09\Nungaray768def.atty2.wpd
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?