Craig v. V. Brim

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03664

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying as moot {{31}} MOTION That This Be the Last Extension Given to V. Bri; denying in part {{36}} Motion. The motion for Appointment of Counsel and Discovery is denied. The request for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply is granted. (Certificate of Service attached)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT FRED CRAIG, Case No. 15-cv-03664-PJH Plaintiff, 8 ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 31, 36 10 V. BRIM, Defendant. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on May 10, 2017. 15 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking an extension, the appointment of counsel and 16 discovery. 17 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social 18 Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel 19 represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive 21 appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 22 (1989). 23 The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an 24 indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires 25 an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the 26 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 27 involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has presented 28 his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. The motion to appoint counsel is 1 denied. 2 Plaintiff also requests discovery from defendant. Plaintiff is informed that the court 3 generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there 4 is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and 5 responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the 6 court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" 7 be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). 8 Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among 9 themselves should the parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the 10 discovery process. The court does not have enough time or resources to oversee all 11 discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific 12 disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements Northern District of California United States District Court 13 (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties 14 meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. 15 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is 16 a prisoner, the Court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner 17 and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although 18 the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains 19 the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before 20 seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute. 21 It does not appear that plaintiff has sought the discovery from defendant. Plaintiff 22 should present a specific discovery request to defendant and not the court. Plaintiff's 23 motion for discovery is denied. 24 CONCLUSION 25 1. Plaintiff's motion that no further extensions be provided for defendant to file a 26 motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 31) is DENIED as moot. 27 2. Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 36) is DENIED IN PART. The motion for the 28 appointment of counsel and discovery is denied. The request for an extension is granted. 2 1 Pla aintiff may have h until July J 10, 201 17, to file a an oppositio on to summary judgme ent. Failure e 2 to file an oppo osition may y result in dismissal of this action.. 3 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 4 Da ated: June 5, 5 2017 5 6 PH HYLLIS J. HHAMILTON N 7 Un nited Statess District Ju udge 8 \\can ndoak.cand.circ9 9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2 2015\2015_03664 4_Craig_v_Brim_ _(PSP)\15-cv-03 3664-PJH-ord4.d docx 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 UNITED D STATES D DISTRICT C COURT 4 NORTHER RN DISTRIC CT OF CALIIFORNIA 5 ROBERT FRE ED CRAIG,, 6 Case No. 115-cv-036644-PJH Plaintiff, 7 v. CERTIFIC CATE OF S SERVICE 8 V. V BRIM, 9 Defendant.. 10 11 I, the un ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employeee in the Offiice of the Clerk, U.S. 12 Northern District of California Disstrict Court, Northern Diistrict of Callifornia. United States District Court 13 14 That on n June 5, 201 17, I SERVE ED a true andd correct coppy(ies) of the attached, bby placing 15 said copy(ies) in i a postage paid envelo ope addressedd to the persson(s) hereinnafter listed, by 16 dep positing said d envelope in n the U.S. Mail, M or by plaacing said coopy(ies) intoo an inter-off ffice delivery y 17 recceptacle locaated in the Cllerk's office.. 18 19 Robert Fred Crraig ID: AS6 6563 San n Quentin, CA C 94974 20 21 22 Daated: June 5, 2017 23 Suusan Y. Soonng 24 Cllerk, Unitedd States Distrrict Court 25 26 Byy:_________ __________________ 27 K Kelly Collins,, Deputy Cleerk to the 28 H Honorable PHHYLLIS J. H HAMILTON N 4