Dickey v. Mendoza et al
Filing
36
ORDER Regarding Dickey's Letters (ECF Nos. 17 , 19 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 31 ). Dickey's request for the Court to conduct legal research on his behalf (ECF No. 28 ) is improper and is therefore Denied. The renewed requests for appointed counsel (ECF Nos. 17 , 19 , 22 , 31 ) are Denied. Dickey's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 31 ) is Denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 10/31/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GARY DICKEY,
12
Case No.: 17-cv-0206-WQH-AGS
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER REGARDING DICKEY’S
LETTERS
(ECF Nos. 17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 31)
v.
GILBERT MENDOZA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Dickey has not been shy about writing the Court about his concerns. (See ECF Nos.
18
17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 31.) In his latest missives, Dickey raises three distinct requests, which
19
may be construed as motions to: (1) conduct legal research on Proposition 57 for him,
20
(2) appoint counsel for him, and (3) extend his response deadline to defendant’s motion to
21
dismiss.
22
A.
Legal Research
23
Dickey’s request for the Court to conduct legal research on his behalf (ECF No. 28)
24
is improper and is therefore DENIED. The Court may not “inject itself into the adversary
25
process on behalf of” any litigant. Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 (9th Cir. 1986);
26
see also id. at 1365 n.5 (warning that the “trial court is under no obligation to become an
27
‘advocate’ for or to assist and guide the pro se layman through the trial thicket”) (citations
28
omitted).
1
17-cv-0206-WQH-AGS
1
B.
Appointed Counsel
2
This Court previously denied Dickey’s request to appoint him counsel because he
3
failed to show extraordinary circumstances. (ECF No. 13.) While Dickey re-asserts that he
4
has a severe mental illness and is on prescription medication (see, e.g., ECF No. 19, at 1),
5
he again failed to attach any supporting documentation and he still seems able to articulate
6
the facts of his claim. See Meeks v. Nunez, Case No. 13cv973-GPC(BGS), 2017 WL
7
476425, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (“An incapacitating mental disability may be
8
grounds for appointment of counsel in some cases, but a plaintiff making that argument
9
must present substantial evidence of incompetence.”) (citation omitted). Thus, the renewed
10
requests for appointed counsel (ECF Nos. 17, 19, 22, 31) are DENIED.
11
C.
Response Deadline
12
Finally, Dickey’s last letter may be construed, in part, as a motion to extend his
13
response deadline. But Dickey already filed a timely response to defendant’s motion to
14
dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 20, 26.) In fact, Dickey even filed a second response, which the
15
Court accepted although it was filed almost two weeks after the deadline and Dickey never
16
received authorization for supplemental briefing. (See ECF Nos. 32–33.) Thus, Dickey’s
17
motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 31) is DENIED as moot.
18
19
20
Dated: October 31, 2017
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-cv-0206-WQH-AGS
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?