(PC) Fairfield v. Corpuz ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELISSA FAIRFIELD, Case No. 1:19-cv-00632-DAD-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 v. ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION 14 A. KHOO, I. SINGH, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 95, 96) 16 17 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and motion seeking a 18 thirty-day extension of time to obtain counsel filed on July 1, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 95, 96). 19 Defendants did not file a response to either motion. Their non-response will be deemed no 20 opposition under Local Rule 230(c)(E.D. Cal. 2022). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 denies Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. The Court, however, will re- 22 evaluate appointment of counsel for Plaintiff should this case proceed to trial. The Court grants 23 in part Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to the extent set forth herein. 24 In requesting appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states he1 “has no assistance or clue how to 25 proceed with depositions, witnesses, or anything else in the area of expertise.” (Doc. No. 95 at 1). 26 The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s three prior motions to appoint counsel, noting the United 27 1 Plaintiff is a transgendered male who prefers the use of male pronouns. (Doc. No. 13 at 32). 28 1 | States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. (Doc. No. 94 at 2-3) 2 | (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, 3 | did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted)). For the 4 | reasons previously explained, the Court again denies Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 5 | counsel. Plaintiff has not articulated any new reasons to justify appointment of counsel, not 6 || previously articulated. Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional 7 || circumstances.” Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). The Court 8 | will reconsider appointment of counsel should this case proceed to trial. 9 Relatedly, Plaintiff seeks a thirty-day extension of time to find counsel. (Doc. No. 96). 10 | Plaintiff states he needs to depose witnesses and does not have the skill set to conduct depositions 11 | or to obtain affidavits from potential witnesses. (/d. at 1). Plaintiff states he needs “30 more days 12 | to litigate the issues.” U/d.). The Court construes the motion as seeking an extension of the 13 | discovery deadline. The Case Management and Scheduling Order set the discovery deadline as 14 | July 8, 2022, so the instant motion was filed before the time set forth in the Amended Discovery 15 and Scheduling Order expired. (See Doc. No. 87). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) permits a court to 16 | modify a scheduling order for good cause shown and with the judge’s consent. The construed 17 | motion seeking an extension of time to conduct discovery is granted to the extent the Court will 18 | grant Plaintiff a thirty-day (30) extension of time for Plaintiff to propound discovery on Defendants. 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 20 1. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 95) is DENIED without prejudice. 21 2. Plaintiffs motion for a thirty-day (30) extension of time (Doc. No. 96) is GRANTED 22 | to the limited extent the Court will permit Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to 23 || propound any additional discovery on Defendants. *4 | Dated: _ August 24, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28