Opinion
No. CIV S-07-0747 LKK DAD PS.
October 23, 2008
ORDER
On October 8, 2008, the pro se plaintiff in this action filed a document with the court titled "Motion to Compel" in which he requested an order compelling defendants to comply with a request for production of documents he had allegedly served upon them and seeking an extension of the October 31, 2008, discovery deadline previously established in the court's scheduling order. On October 15, 2008, the court issued a minute order noting that the motion had not been properly noticed for hearing, would not be placed on the court's calendar and referring plaintiff to Local Rule 37-251 with respect to the requirements governing discovery motions.
The court now addresses two additional documents recently filed by plaintiff. On October 20, 2008, plaintiff filed a document titled merely "Notice of Motion" seeking to have his previously filed motion to compel set for hearing on October 31, 2008. Plaintiff's "Notice of Motion" is again defective in that it fails to comply with the 21-day notice requirement of Local Rule 37-251(a). Moreover, plaintiff has also failed to comply with the meet and confer or joint statement requirements of that local rule. See Local Rule 37-251(b) (c). Finally, in attempting to notice the motion to compel for hearing on the last day of discovery, plaintiff is out of compliance with the court's January 22, 2008, scheduling order which requires:
All discovery shall be conducted so as to be completed by October 31, 2008. The word "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court. See Local Rule 37-251.
Scheduling Order at 4.
In light of plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the Local Rules of this court and the court's orders and because the motion to compel is untimely in any event, his "Notice of Motion" filed October 20, 2008, will be stricken and the motion to compel will not be placed on the court's calendar for hearing.
Next, on October 6, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of legal advisor or, in the alternative, counsel. Plaintiff explains in that motion that his right to redress of grievances is being denied because the allies of the defendants are poisoning him through the use of chemicals to which he is hyper-sensitive. The court previously denied a request for appointment of counsel filed by plaintiff on January 14, 2008. As noted at that time, appointment of counsel is not a matter of right in civil cases. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). Although plaintiff has made a showing of indigency, he has not demonstrated any effort to secure counsel and has not shown that his claims have merit such that counsel should be appointed. See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981) (describing factors to be considered in ruling on a request for appointment of counsel). For these reasons, plaintiff's second request for appointment of counsel will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's "Notice of Motion" (Doc. No. 49) filed October 20, 2008, is stricken and will be disregarded; and
2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Appointment of Legal Advisor" (Doc. No. 45) filed October 6, 2008 is denied.