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