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