United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NOS. 22, 26]
J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to extend the
discovery cut-off by 30 days. Docket No. 22. Defendants filed
a response and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos. 24, 25.
Plaintiff further filed a motion for appointment of counsel.
Docket No. 26. The Court finds that the motion is properly
resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For
the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion to
extend, Docket No. 22, is GRANTED and
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, Docket No.
26, is DENIED.
alleges violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for events that occurred during his incarceration at
High Desert State Prison. Docket No. 8 at 4-14. The Court
screened Plaintiff's amended complaint and ordered that
two of Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs and one claim of equal protection may
proceed. Docket No. 7.
Motion to Extend Discovery
contends that an extension of the discovery cut-off is
necessary to complete discovery, including deposing two
Defendants, who will be deposed by April 11, 2019. Docket No.
22 at 2.
response, Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to
establish good cause to extend discovery. Docket No. 24 at 2.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff's motion fails to
comply with Local Rule 26-4, in that he fails to state the
discovery completed, the discovery which remains, the reason
why remaining discovery was not completed, and a proposed
schedule for completing discovery. Id. at 3.
Defendants further contend that Plaintiff did not serve
discovery requests during the first two months of discovery.
Id. Defendants submit that Plaintiff has not
attempted to make arrangements for the two Defendants'
depositions he contends will be completed before April 11,
reply, Plaintiff contends that he is incarcerated at the
Lovelock Correctional Center, which prohibits inmates from
accessing the law library for research. Docket No. 25 at 1.
Plaintiff submits that he is dependent on a researcher
assigned to his housing unit and, as a result, has sometimes
been brought the wrong materials, missing copy work, or
experienced other issues which waste time. Id. at
1-2. Plaintiff further submits that the complexity of the
issues and high stakes of his case compound the need for an
extension. Id. at 2. Finally, Plaintiff submits
these circumstances justify an appointment of counsel.
Id. at 2-3.
motion to extend deadlines in the Court's scheduling
order must be supported by a showing of “good
cause” for the extension. Local Rule 26-4; see also
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
608-609 (9th Cir.1992). Good cause to extend a discovery
deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite
the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The good cause inquiry
focuses primarily on the movant's diligence. See
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th
Cir. 2000). The Court must liberally construe the pleadings
of a pro se party. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010).
Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a
30-day extension. Accordingly, his motion to extend, Docket
No. 22, is GRANTED. The discovery cut-off is extended to May
13, 2019. The Court cautions Plaintiff that any further
motions he files must comply in full with all applicable
federal and local rules.
Appointment of Counsel
asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him. Docket
No. 26. Plaintiff contends that he is dependent on the
competence of the researcher assigned but that the researcher
makes gross mistakes. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further
contends that the complexity and high stakes of his case
justify an appointment of counsel. Id. at 2-3.
civil cases, a court may only appoint counsel to represent
litigants proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). That provision does not
authorize courts to require counsel to represent such
litigants, but only to request such representation on a
pro bono basis. See Mallard v. United States
Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). The appointment
of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1) is limited to cases
presenting exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v.
Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103
(9th Cir. 2004). Appointment of counsel is not a matter of
right. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269
(9th Cir. 1982). To determine whether “exceptional
circumstances” necessary for appointment of counsel are
present, the Court evaluates (1) the likelihood of the
success of Plaintiff's claims on the merits and (2)
Plaintiff's ability to articulate claims pro se
“in light ...