Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 216

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; INSTRUCTIONS TO DEFENDANTS COUNSEL by Judge Beth Labson Freeman Denying 208 Motion. Reply due by 11/17/2020. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 216 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

HOOMAN PANAH, an individual,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13
14

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

15

Case No. 14-00166 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; DENYING
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;
DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;
INSTRUCTIONS TO
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL

Defendants.
(Docket Nos. 204, 208, 215)

16
17

Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) proceeding

18
19

pro se, filed a second amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

20

unconstitutional acts by SQSP correctional officers. The operative complaint in this action

21

is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) along with a supplemental complaint.

22

Dkt. No. 54, 67. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss

23

claims as untimely and set briefing on the only remaining timely claim, i.e., an Eighth

24

Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety against Defendants Anderson and

25

Odom based on the February 4, 2012 stabbing. Dkt. No. 206 at 31. Plaintiff has filed

26

several motions which are addressed below.

27

///

28

///

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 216 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 3

1
2

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion for Reconsideration

3
4

The Court found several of Plaintiff’s claims cognizable, and scheduled briefing on

5

the matter. (Docket No. 69.) Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to

6

written discovery which is unopposed. (Docket Nos. 135, 146.) Plaintiff has filed another

7

renewed motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 144.) Lastly, Plaintiff has filed

8

a motion for extension of time to respond to the court order directing him to provide

9

addresses for unserved Defendants. (Docket No. 147.)

10

Defendants move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff to respond to their first set of written discovery. (Docket No. 135.) Defense

12

counsel Allison M. Low certifies that she served interrogatories and requests for

13

production of documents on Plaintiff on June 27, 2019; she received no response from

14

Plaintiff. (Id. at 1; Low Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Ms. Low wrote Plaintiff on August 13, 2019,

15

inquiring on the status of the discovery requests, and again received no response. (Id.;

16

Low Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has filed no opposition to Defendants’ motion to

17

contradict counsel’s assertions regarding his failure to comply with their requests for

18

discovery. Accordingly, having shown that they first attempted in good faith to confer

19

with Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 37, Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED.

20

Defendants are directed to re-serve Plaintiff with their requests for written discovery

21

within seven (7) days from the filing of this order. Plaintiff shall provide his response

22

within thirty days of the date of service of the demand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C),

23

33(b)(2). Failure to comply with this order by providing a response to Defendants’

24

written discovery may result in the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d).

25

Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 144.)

26

Plaintiff has already been informed that appointment of counsel is granted only in

27

exceptional circumstances. (See Docket Nos. 46, 98, 118); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

28
2

Case 5:14-cv-00166-BLF Document 216 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 3

1

1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff claims that he suffers from a vision impairment and

2

that prison officials have failed to provide him with a new pair of glasses; he states that he

3

is managing with his old pair of glasses with its “outdated” prescription. Nevertheless,

4

Plaintiff continues to demonstrate to his ability to proceed pro se in this action by his

5

numerous and extensive filings, including the motions addressed herein, despite the

6

challenges he alleges. (Id.) Accordingly, for the same reasons the previous motions were

7

denied, (Docket Nos. 46, 98, 118), this renewed motion is DENIED for lack of exceptional

8

circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th

9

Cir. 2004); Rand,113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Court’s order,

12

(Docket No. 142), directing him to file information for unserved Defendants. (Docket No.

13

147). Plaintiff states that the prison is on a complete lockdown that may last up to three

14

weeks. (Docket No. 147.) He requests an extra sixty days, up to November 17, 2019, to

15

comply with the court order. (Id.) Good cause appearing, his request is GRANTED.

16

Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later than November 17, 2019. Failure to respond in

17

that time shall result in the dismissal of the unserved Defendants Lt. Jackson, AW

18

Moore, CDW Rodriguez and under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

19

Procedure. (Docket No. 142.)

20

This order terminates Docket Nos. 135, 144, and 147.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: __November 16, 2020__

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27

Order Granting M. to Compel; Deny Appt. of Counsel; Grant EOT to File Response
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.14\00166Panah_deny.atty4.motions

28
3