Opinion
2:20-cv-01402-JAD-EJY
12-15-2022
Anthony Newton, Plaintiff v. T. Akkad, et al., Defendants
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
Plaintiff Anthony Newton brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by corrections officer Talal Akkad. On November 22, 2022, Akkad filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. The certificate of service attached to that motion reflects that it was served on Newton by mail, and the court issued a separate notice to Newton that advised him of the effect of the filing of such a dispositive motion and his deadline to respond. Four days later, Newton dispatched to the court a “response” to that notice in which he asks whether a dispositive motion has been filed and explains that he no longer has help with his case and doesn't know or understand how to respond to such a motion.
ECF No. 42.
Id. at 25.
ECF No. 43
ECF No. 46.
The court hereby confirms that such a motion was, in fact filed, and Newton's deadline to respond to it passed on December 13, 2022. I liberally construe Newton's voiced concerns about his inability to pursue his claims and respond to dispositive motions as a motion to appoint counsel to assist him. Unfortunately, indigent, civil-rights litigants like Newton do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. Instead, these requests are governed by 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(1), which allows the court to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Courts do so only in “exceptional circumstances.” “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances' exist, a court must consider ‘the 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.” “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Because Newton's education and experience level are not uncommon for pro se prisoner litigants, and his claims are not particularly complex, I do not find exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel for him in this case. So I deny his tacit request for appointment of counsel at this time.
ECF No. 42.
Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981).
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action).
Id.
Id.
But because it appears that Newton was waiting for some response from this court before filing a proper response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, I find that such an expectation is good cause for a reasonable extension of the deadline for him to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. So I sua sponte grant an extension for response.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Anthony Newton's deadline to respond to Defendant Talal Akkad's motion for summary judgment, filed on November 22, 2022, [ECF No. 42] is EXTENDED to January 17, 2023. Newton thus has until January 17, 2023, to file a proper, substantive response to the motion for summary judgment. If he did not receive a copy of that motion for summary judgment, he must notify the court in writing immediately.