Opinion
2:20-cv-00525-JAD-EJY
07-27-2023
Sherri Love, Plaintiff v. Medical Unit E FMWCC, et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND ORDERING A REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINE [ECF NOS. 234, 235]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 25, 2023, plaintiff Sherri Love filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to “stay” her deadline to respond to defendant's long-pending summary-judgment motion. Love's motion for counsel is denied as moot because the relief she seeks has already been ordered. On July 17, 2023, the court referred this matter to the pro bono pilot program to attempt to locate another attorney to take Love's case. The court can take no other action to provide counsel in this civil case.
ECF No. 234; ECF No. 235.
ECF No. 233.
I construe Love's motion to stay her deadline as an opposition to the summary-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Love has repeatedly told this court that she does not have the discovery she needs to adequately respond to the defendants' motion. When Love was briefly represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office, her counsel also expressed concern that certain crucial discovery was not obtained in this case. So, in the interests of justice, I construe her motion requesting a stay, along with her previous attempts to invoke FRCP 56(d), as an opposition to the summary-judgment motion on that basis alone. So I give defendants seven days to reply to Love's argument that she was unable to obtain necessary discovery to prove her case, necessitating relief under FRCP 56(d).
See ECF No. 174 at 3-4 (Love's “Rule 56(d) declaration”); ECF No. 235 at 2 (stating that see needs to have a kidney specialist and orthopedic specialist study her medical records, collect declarations from witnesses, and serve interrogatories).
See ECF No. 228 at 2.
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Love's motion for the appointment of counsel [ECF No. 234] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Love's motion to stay her response deadline is construed as a response to the defendants' summary-judgment motion under FRCP 56(d). The Clerk of Court is directed to rename the motion at ECF No. 235 as an “opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion under FRCP 56(d).” Defendants have seven days to reply to Love's argument that she cannot present facts essential to justify her opposition under FRCP 56(d).