Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04136/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04136-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

*E-FILED - 8/2/10*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARVELLO L. TUFONO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. VALENZUELA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4136 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against prison officials. Before the court is plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and

motions for extension of time to file response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 32, 33) are DENIED for want of

exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also

Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex and plaintiff has thus far

been able to adequately present his claims. This denial is without prejudice to the court’s sua sponte

appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such

appointment. 

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment (docket nos. 31, 34) are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to 

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to File Response to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.09\Tufono136Atty-EOT.wpd

Case 5:09-cv-04136-RMW Document 35 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 3
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

defendants’ motion for summary judgment by September 28, 2010. Defendants reply brief is due

no later than fifteen (15) days after Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

This order terminates docket nos. 31, 32, 33, 34.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/30/10 _________________________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-04136-RMW Document 35 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel; Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to File Response to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.09\Tufono136Atty-EOT.wpd

Case 5:09-cv-04136-RMW Document 35 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3