DESPOT v. THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 48

ORDER re Response to Motion, filed by DAVID DESPOT, denying request for appointment of counsel, granting in part request for extension of time: Brief in Opposition to motions to dismiss 22 32 35 40 42 due by 4/22/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 3/8/2016. (spc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID DESPOT, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs ) ) THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No. 15-1672 ORDER Plaintiff, David Despot, has filed the above-captioned action against numerous defendants. Four of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss and briefing orders have been entered, directing Plaintiff to file responses thereto. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Response to Court Order Dated February 16, 2016 and Initial Response to Various Motions to Dismiss, Answers, etc. (March 3, 2016).” In this filing, Plaintiff requests an extension of time of at least 90 days to respond to the various motions to dismiss. In addition, he states that he is “again requesting appointment by the Court of legal counsel to represent the Plaintiff to assure that proper justice is served in this case.” (ECF No. 47 at 2.) This request also appeared in the Complaint (ECF No. at 19 ¶ 44(1).) As to the request for an extension of time, it will be granted in part. Plaintiff is allowed 45 days, or until April 22, 2016, to respond to the motion to dismiss filed by Microsoft Corp./Bing (ECF No. 22), the joinder in that motion by Yahoo! Inc. (ECF No. 32), the motion to dismiss filed by Casetext, Inc. (ECF No. 35), the motion to dismiss filed by Law360.com/ Portfolio Media, Inc. (ECF No. 40), and the motion to dismiss filed by Google, Inc. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff may file a consolidated response to all these motions, if he so chooses. With respect to the request for appointment of counsel, there is simply no provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or federal statutes which allows for the appointment of counsel in this kind of case. As another district court recently summarized: In most civil cases, including employment discrimination actions, there is no federal constitutional right to civil counsel. See Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic, Access to Justice: Ensuring Meaningful Access to Counsel in Civil Cases Response to the Periodic Report of the United States to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, 64 Syracuse L. Rev. 409, 410 (2014). Unless physical incarceration is at issue, the United States Supreme Court has ruled there is a presumption against the provision of counsel. See id. at fn. 3 (citing Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981) and Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011)). Floyd v. Cosi, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 558, 562 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). Plaintiff has not indicated that he is indigent and he is not in danger of losing his physical liberty. Plaintiff is welcome to hire counsel to represent him. AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2016, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 47) is granted in part in that he may file an appropriate response including possible affidavits in opposition to the pending motions to dismiss, or an amended complaint, by April 22, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 47) is denied. s/Robert C. Mitchell ROBERT C. MITCHELL United States Magistrate Judge cc: David Despot 100 Elizabeth Drive Apt. 1102 Pittsburgh, PA 15220

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?