Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00750-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY DYER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL AND EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. No. 29)

On April 22, 2024, pro se Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. No. 29, 

“Motion”). The Motion comprises one page and four sentences. In it, Plaintiff states he “need[s] 

the appointment of counsel” and “feels that this maybe considerate [sic] to make this case . . . a 

class action.”1 (Id. at 1). Although titled as seeking an extension of time, the Motion does not 

identify for what Plaintiff seeks an extension of time. For the reasons set forth below, the 

undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and extension of time.

First, Plaintiff states that he “need[s] the appointment of counsel” but does not otherwise 

1 Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 

564 U.S. 338, 345 (2011). “As the party seeking class certification, [Plaintiff] bears the burden of 

demonstrating that [he] has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the 

requirements of Rule 23(b).” Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), 

amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). The four requirements of Rule 23(a) are: (1) numerosity; (2) 

commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 674 (9th 

Cir. 2014). Because Plaintiff does not set forth any argument for class certification beyond a casual and 

tentative comment, the Court declines to analyze the issue further.

Case 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK Document 30 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 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

2

explain the reason for his request. (Doc. No. 29 at 1). The United States Constitution does not 

require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) 

(explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in 

civil cases). This Court has discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to appoint counsel for 

an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating 

the court has authority to appoint counsel for people unable to afford counsel); see also United 

States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for 

motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other citations omitted). At the outset, Plaintiff paid 

the filing fee to commence this action and has not demonstrated he is indigent, yet alone 

demonstrated exceptional circumstances.

2

Second, other than requesting an unspecified extension of time, Plaintiff does not explain 

why he requires an extension of time. To the extent Plaintiff seeks additional time to respond to 

the Court’s November 13, 2023 Findings and Recommendation, the Motion was filed more than 

five months past the deadline to file objections. (See Doc. No. 26 at 4-5) (advising Plaintiff of 

14-day deadline to file objections). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) governs requests 

for extension of time after the time to respond has expired and requires a showing of excusable 

neglect. Here, the Motion is silent as to why the extension is necessary or any reason 

demonstrating excusable neglect. (See Doc. No. 29). The Court finds Plaintiff fails to articulate 

any basis for this Court to find excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion seeking appointment of counsel and an extension of time (Doc. No. 29) 

is DENIED. 

Dated: May 1, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 The Court denied Plaintiff’s earlier motion seeking appointment of counsel on September 22, 2023 and 

advised Plaintiff that he must demonstrate both indigence and exceptional circumstances. (Doc. No. 25).

Case 1:22-cv-00750-KES-HBK Document 30 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 2