Holmes v. Estock et al
Filing
20
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and for the Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff's request for a continuance is granted as follows: Rule 26 Supplemental Disclosures are due 1/19/2018. Ex pert Discovery must be completed on or before 2/16/2018. Any Pre-Trial Motions must be filed on or before 3/19/2018. A Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for 6/7/2018 at 1:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major, with Confidential Statements due 5/29/2018. The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 12/1/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
Case No.: 16cv2458-MMA(BLM)
CHARLES HOLMES,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Plaintiff,
6
7
v.
8
DR. ESTOCK, DR. BAL, S. CHAIKEN, C.
REGULES, AND DOES 1-3,
9
[ECF No. 18]
Defendants.
10
11
12
On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “REQ. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE EXPERT
13
WITNESS REBUTTAL” that was accepted by the Court on discrepancy on November 27, 2017.
14
See ECF Nos. 17-18.
15
supplemental disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence by sixty days. Id. at 2.
16
In support, Plaintiff states that he is restricted in what he can do due to the fact that he is pro
17
se and incarcerated. Id. at 1. Plaintiff notes that this is his first request for an extension of
18
time. Id. In further support, Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Dudley Seth Danoff, submitted a letter to the
19
Court stating that he needs an additional thirty to forty five days to complete his report and that
20
he has not yet received the medical opinion provided to Defendants so that he may provide any
21
necessary rebuttal. See ECF No. 19.
Plaintiff seeks to continue the November 17, 2017 deadline for
22
Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is GRANTED as follows:
23
Event
Current Date
Continued Date
Rule 26 Supplemental
Disclosures
November 17, 2017
January 19, 2018
Completion Expert Disc.
December 22, 2017
February 16, 2018
24
25
26
27
28
1
16cv2458-MMA(BLM)
1
Pre-Trial Mtn Filing
Cutoff
January 22, 2018
March 19, 2018
Mandatory Settlement
Conference
April 9, 2018
at 9:30 a.m.
June 7, 2018
at 1:30 p.m.
5
Confidential Statements
March 30, 2018
May 29, 2018
6
Motions in Limine
April 23, 2018
VACATED1
Oppositions to Motions
In limine
May 7, 2018
VACATED
Memo of Contentions
Of Fact and Law
April 23, 2018
VACATED
Compliance with PreTrial Disclosure Reqs.
April 23, 2018
VACATED
April 30, 2018
VACATED
14
Rule 16.l(f)(4)
Narrowing Of Triable
Issues Mtg.
15
Produce Pre-Trial Order
May 7, 2018
VACATED
Proposed Final Pretrial
Conference. Order
Served/Lodged
June 8, 2018
VACATED
Final Pretrial Conf.
May 21, 2018
at 3:00 p.m.
VACATED
21
Trial
June 19, 2018
VACATED
22
Proposed Jury Instructions June 14, 2018
VACATED
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
If appropriate, following the filing of an order ruling on a motion for summary judgment or
other dispositive pretrial motion, or in the event no such motion is filed, Judge Anello will issue
a pretrial scheduling order setting a pretrial conference, trial date, and all related pretrial
deadlines. The parties must review and be familiar with Judge Anello’s Civil Chambers Rules,
which provide additional information regarding pretrial scheduling.
1
2
16cv2458-MMA(BLM)
1
2
All other requirements and guidelines remain as previously set. See ECF No. 9.
In addition to the continuance, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent
3
him “due to the complexity of the medical complaint at issue.”
ECF No. 18 at 1-2.
The
4
Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant
5
may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S.
6
18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted discretion to appoint
7
counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,
8
390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional circumstances demands at least
9
“an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the
10
plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’”
11
Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).
12
Thus far, Plaintiff has drafted and submitted pleadings and motions without the assistance
13
of counsel. See Docket. In addition to the instant motion, he has submitted a complaint (ECF
14
No. 1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and a motion for preliminary
15
injunction (ECF No. 12). From the Court’s review of these documents, it is clear that Plaintiff is
16
able to articulate the claims of his case. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for
17
counsel [see ECF No. 16] and Plaintiff’s current request does not provide any new facts justifying
18
such an extraordinary remedy. ECF No. 18. Further, Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood
19
of success on the merits such that his case should be classified as an “exceptional
20
circumstance[].” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Because
21
Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” at this time, the Court DENIES
22
without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: 12/1/2017
26
27
28
3
16cv2458-MMA(BLM)
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?