Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiff a motion entitled “Plaintiff’s further need for counsel or 

discovery new evidence about defendants actual job hours.” (ECF No. 75]

Plaintiff requests the Court intervene to assist him in interpreting and/or reading the medical 

records submitted with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that the Court 

cannot provide such assistance to Plaintiff, and there is presently no basis for the appointment of 

counsel. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel and/or assistance 

from the Court regarding alleged falsification of evidence on September 2, 2014, and Plaintiff presents 

no circumstances to warrant counsel and/or reconsideration of the prior order. (ECF No. 73.) 

Plaintiff continues to file motions which contain the same essential argument relating to 

alleged falsification of evidence by Defendants submitted in support of their motion for summary 

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

REQUEST FOR COUNSEL AND/OR 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 75]

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 76 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

judgment which only serve to delay the judicial flow and ability of Court to resolve this case in an 

efficient manner. Furthermore, despite having been granted two extensions of time to file an 

opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has yet to file an 

opposition but has instead continued to file miscellaneous motions relating to the merits of 

Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not consider and resolve Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment in a piecemeal manner, thus all of Plaintiff’s arguments opposing said 

motion must be presented in one concise and succinct opposition. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s present motion may be read at least inferentially to request additional 

time to file an opposition, in the interest of justice, the Court will give Plaintiff one further, thirty day, 

opportunity to respond properly to Defendants’ motion. A failure to respond within that time with 

persuasive law and evidence in opposition to the motion could result in the Court granting the motion. 

The Court cannot and will not continue to delay the proceedings while Plaintiff seeks to present 

piecemeal arguments and requests for unspecified evidence after the deadline for discovery has 

expired. 

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for counsel and/or discovery is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition 

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and

3. No further extensions of time will be entertained, absent a showing of extraordinary 

circumstances, not present here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 76 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 2