(PC) Uhuru v. Singh ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KOHEN DIALLO UHURU, No. 2:20-cv-01664-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. SINGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2021, the magistrate judge recommended that 19 Defendant’s summary judgment motion be granted. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen 20 days to file objections. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file objections. On January 26, 2022, this Court 21 adopted the findings and recommendations and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 64, 65.) 22 Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on January 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment 23 of counsel. (ECF No. 66 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred on December 14, 2021. 24 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he received the December 10, 2021 findings and recommendations 25 “well after” the fourteen days to file objections passed. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he is being 26 denied access to his legal property. (Id.) 27 Good cause appearing, the January 26, 2022 order and judgment are vacated. Plaintiff is 28 granted fourteen days to file objections to the December 10, 2021 findings and recommendations. 1 | If Plaintiff does not have access to his legal property regarding this action, he shall inform the 2 | Court within that time. If Plaintiff does not have access to his legal property, he shall also inform 3 | the Court of his attempts to obtain access to his legal property. 4 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied because Plaintiff has not 5 | demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. 6 | Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 7 | 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 8 The proof of service attached to Plaintiff's pending motion indicates that Plaintiff is now 9 | housed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). (ECF No. 66 at 3.) The Clerk of the Court is 10 || directed to amend court records to reflect Plaintiff’s new address. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The January 26, 2022 Order and Judgment, (ECF Nos. 64, 65), are VACATED; 13 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED fourteen days from the date of this Order to file objections 14 | to the December 10, 2021 Findings and Recommendations, (ECF No. 63); 15 3. If Plaintiff does not have access to his legal property regarding this action, Plaintiff 16 | shall notify the Court within fourteen days of the date of this Order; 17 4. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (ECF No. 66), is DENIED; and 18 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend court records to reflect that Plaintiff is 19 | now housed at the California Medical Facility, 1600 California Drive, Vacaville, California, 20 | 95696. 21 | DATED: July 12, 2022 /) “ if, Lay 24 — a \ A oo 95 Troy L. Nunley \ United States District Judge 26 27 28