Opinion
No. CIV S-08-2177-SPG (PC).
August 25, 2011
ORDER
Defendants' Motion to Strike
On August 10, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment because it was untimely filed. This court's scheduling order set April 15, 2010, as the last day to file dispositive motions. Although he did not request an extension of time, Plaintiff filed his cross-motion for summary judgment on July 25, 2011, more than three months after the deadline set in the scheduling order. This court therefore GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely filed.
Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel
On October 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. On November 9, 2010, the court denied Plaintiff's request because, at that stage in the proceedings, the court was unable to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, Plaintiff had, at that time, filed an adequately articulate complaint and discovery requests.
At the summary judgment stage, however, it now appears that some of Plaintiff's claims may have merit but that he is unable "to articulate [them] pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that a district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) after evaluating a plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate his claims), withdrawn in part on other grounds by 154 F.3d 952, 954 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court therefore vacates its order of November 9, 2010. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is HEREBY GRANTED. The court refers the matter to the pro bono coordinator for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sue Jean Park, so that she might locate suitable counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 24, 2011.