From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Merino v. Gomez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 10, 2022
2:21-cv-0572 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0572 JAM KJN P

06-10-2022

FRANCISCO MERINO, Plaintiff, v. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are pending before the court.

Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 80, 86)

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time.

Plaintiff's Request for Extension of Time (ECF No. 85)

On May 19, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for a 30-60 days extension of time to prepare for the jury trial. (ECF No. 85.) For the reasons stated herein, this motion is denied.

On May 6, 2022, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order setting the discovery and pretrial motion deadlines. (ECF No. 83.) No jury trial has been scheduled. The jury trial will be scheduled if no dispositive motions are filed by the pretrial motion deadline or following resolution of any dispositive pretrial motions, if appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to prepare for the jury trial is denied as premature.

Plaintiff's Motion for Witnesses to Appear (ECF No. 87)

On May 26, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that two inmate witnesses appear at the jury trial on plaintiff's behalf. (ECF No. 87.) This motion is denied as premature because no jury trial has been scheduled.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 80, 86) are denied without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 85) is denied; and

3. Plaintiff's motion for witnesses (ECF No. 87) is denied.


Summaries of

Merino v. Gomez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 10, 2022
2:21-cv-0572 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)
Case details for

Merino v. Gomez

Case Details

Full title:FRANCISCO MERINO, Plaintiff, v. GOMEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 10, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-0572 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)