(PC) Malcolm Stroud v. Pruitt ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MALCOLM TANDY LAMON STROUD, Case No. 1:17-cv-01659-LJO-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 13 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING 14 PRUITT, et al., PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND 15 Defendants. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 16 CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SETTLEMENT OFFER 17 (ECF No. 30) 18 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 19 20 Plaintiff Malcolm Tandy Lamon Stroud is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 I. Introduction 24 This action is currently proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against 25 Defendant Pruitt for sexual abuse in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants 26 Pruitt and Smith for discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 27 Amendment. (ECF No. 19.) 28 On December 9, 2019, Defendants Pruitt and Smith filed a motion for summary judgment 1 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 29.) 2 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an 3 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for 4 appointment of counsel, and Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to consider 5 Plaintiff’s settlement offer, filed on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 30.) 6 II. Motion for Extension of Time to File Second Amended Complaint 7 Plaintiff requests that this Court grant him an extension of time to file his opposition to 8 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff asserts that he needs 9 additional time to adequately prepare his opposition because he has been unable to get access to 10 the prison law library due to the numbers of other inmates also wanting access and the library’s 11 limited schedule during the holiday season. (Id.) 12 Having considered the request, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause 13 for an extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of 14 time to file his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion is granted. Plaintiff shall 15 file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, if any, no later than thirty (30) 16 days from the date of service of this order. 17 III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 18 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to 20 represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for 21 the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional 22 circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). 23 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 26 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 27 on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 28 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 1 “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. 2 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 3 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. 4 Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court should appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this 5 action because Plaintiff is an indigent layperson at law, who suffers from post-traumatic stress 6 disorder. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that they have a hard time with concentrating, especially 7 while reading, which results in a loss of comprehension and understanding. 8 However, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointed counsel, but 9 does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Initially, circumstances common to most 10 prisoners, such as lack of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire 11 counsel, do not alone establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of 12 counsel. Further, Plaintiff’s apprehension with pursuing this case on his own, while 13 understandable, is not sufficient grounds for appointing counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 14 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during 15 litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary 16 to support the case.”). Additionally, while Plaintiff has pled cognizable claims, Plaintiff has not 17 established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of those cognizable claims. Finally, 18 based on a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that the legal issues in this case do not 19 appear to be particularly complex and that Plaintiff can adequately articulate their claims. 20 Therefore, the Court denies, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s renewed motion for 21 appointment of counsel. 22 IV. Motion for Order Requiring Defendants to Consider Plaintiff’s Settlement Offer 23 Plaintiff moves this Court for an order requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiff’s latest 24 settlement offer. (ECF No. 30, at 4.) However, Plaintiff does not have a legal right to compel 25 Defendants to consider, or accept, Plaintiff’s settlement offers. Therefore, the Court denies 26 Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiff’s latest settlement offer. 27 However, Plaintiff is not precluded from negotiating a settlement directly with defense 28 counsel. 1 V. Order 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ 4 motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 30), is GRANTED; 5 2. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion 6 within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; 7 3. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 30), is DENIED, 8 without prejudice; and 9 4. Plaintiff’s motion for order requiring Defendants to consider Plaintiff’s settlement 10 offer, (ECF No. 30), is DENIED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: January 8, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28