(PC) Curry v. Sessions ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN INDIANA CURRY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00227-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 14 SESSIONS, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 40, 41 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a third motion requesting the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 40. As 18 previously explained to plaintiff, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 19 this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the 20 authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the 21 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary 22 assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to 23 represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a 24 means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional 25 circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate 26 both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his 27 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 28 1 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is necessary because the law library at his 3 facility is currently closed to inmates due to the current pandemic. ECF No. 40. He claims that 4 that this has limited his ability to gain access to legal materials. Id. The court is sympathetic to 5 the challenge plaintiff faces in gaining access to legal material. But this challenge is not unique 6 to plaintiff. Inmates throughout California and the country face similar obstacles as a result of the 7 pandemic. Accordingly, plaintiff’s situation, while unfortunate, does not constitute an 8 exceptional circumstance justifying the appointment of counsel. To hold otherwise would require 9 counsel be appointed for virtually all incarcerated litigants, which is simply not feasible. For this 10 reason, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel will be denied. 11 Plaintiff also moves for a thirty-day extension of time to respond to defendant Sessions’s 12 interrogatories. ECF No. 41. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is 13 granted. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 40, is denied without 16 prejudice. 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time, ECF No. 41, is granted, and 18 plaintiff shall serve his responses to defendant Sessions’s interrogatories by no later than 19 February 22, 2021. 20 3. The August 24, 2020 discovery and scheduling order is modified as follows: 21 a. The deadline for completion of discovery is extended to February 22, 2021 for 22 the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff to serve his response to Sessions’s interrogatories. 23 b. Defendant Sessions is granted until March 8, 2021 to file a motion to compel 24 plaintiff’s responses to his interrogatories. 25 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 21, 2021 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28