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)
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?