Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00520/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00520-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL D. RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DON HORSLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-00520 SBA (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING

HIS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; AND DIRECTIONS TO

CLERK

(Docket no. 51)

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to

dismiss was due on February 10, 2010. To date, Plaintiff has not filed his opposition. Instead,

Plaintiff has filed a request for suspension of proceedings until April 26, 2010. Plaintiff states that

he is requesting the Court to suspend proceedings in this action because he is "experiencing various

difficulties with case(s), accessing papers (docum.) and supplies, and is fighting a flu, and is w/out

assistance." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a notice of change of address.

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. There is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty

if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in 

§ 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)

(en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only

in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the

likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under

§ 1915. See id. The Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Plaintiff to court appointed

Case 4:07-cv-00520-SBA Document 53 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

counsel do not exist because the legal issues are not complex. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request is

DENIED.

As mentioned above, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion is presently

overdue. The Court construes Plaintiff's request for suspension of proceedings as a request for an

extension of time, up to and including April 26, 2010, in which to file his opposition to Defendants'

dispositive motion. Having read and considered Plaintiff's request and the accompanying

declaration filed by Plaintiff, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff claims that he needs an extension because "experiencing various

difficulties with case(s), accessing papers (docum.) and supplies . . . ." (Id.) However, Plaintiff does

not specify why he needs to have access to the alleged cases and documents in order to respond to

Defendants' dispositive motion. The record shows that Defendants have attached the relevant

declarations and exhibits to their dispositive motion, and that Plaintiff was mailed copies of the

aforementioned declarations and exhibits on January 11, 2010. Plaintiff was initially given thirty

days to file an opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion, which should have given him ample

opportunity to meet this deadline. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from the flu; however,

Plaintiff does not support his allegation with any more information that would lead the Court to

believe that anything more than a brief extension of time is warranted. Plaintiff's request for an

extension of time up to and including April 26, 2010 is DENIED. Even if the Court finds that

Plaintiff should have been able to file timely opposition, the Court GRANTS him a brief extension.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's request for suspension of proceedings, which has been construed as a

request for an extension of time is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff must file his

opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion no later than March 8, 2010. Defendants may file

their reply to the opposition no later than March 22, 2010. After the March 22, 2010 due date for

Defendants' reply, the Court will resolve Defendants' dispositive motion in a separate written Order.

No further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

Case 4:07-cv-00520-SBA Document 53 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Rodgers0520.2ndDenySTAY&denyATTY.wpd 3

2. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

3. Because Plaintiff has filed a notice of change of address, the Court directs the Clerk

of the Court to send a copy of Defendants' dispositive motion and all the attached declarations and

exhibits (docket no. 49) to Plaintiff's new address.

4. This Order terminates Docket no. 51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/17/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00520-SBA Document 53 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Rodgers0520.2ndDenySTAY&denyATTY.wpd 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL D. RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DON HORSLEY et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-00520 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Russell Dwayne Rodgers UKZ955

Santa Rita Jail

5325 Broder Boulevard

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: February 22, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-00520-SBA Document 53 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 4