Sturgis v. Rupf et al

Filing 47

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; Denying Appointment of Counsel (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

LAMOS WAYNE STURGIS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF WARREN E.
RUPF, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-3680 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
DENYING APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s second request for extension of time to file his

19

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and his fifth request for appointment

20

of counsel.

21

Because it appears no party would be prejudiced by an extension, Plaintiff’s request is

22

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed.

23

Defendants shall file a reply no later than fifteen (15) days thereafter.

24

Plaintiff’s fifth request for appointment of counsel is DENIED for want of exceptional

25

circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lassiter v.

26

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in a

27

civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex, and Plaintiff has thus far been

28

able to adequately present his claims. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying
Appointment of Counsel
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Sturgis680EOT-OppoMSJ-atty.wpd

1

appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such

2

appointment.

3

This order terminates docket no. 41.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

DATED: 8/29/11
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying
Appointment of Counsel
2
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Sturgis680EOT-OppoMSJ-atty.wpd