Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658-15/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JEROME MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1658 JAM DAD P

vs.

SNOWDEN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. Under

the court’s scheduling order, the parties were required to complete discovery by September 2,

2011, and file any dispositive motions on or before November 28, 2011. On August 30, 2011,

the defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and informed the court that they

have been unable to depose plaintiff because his psychiatric condition deteriorated, and he was

being held in an inpatient mental health unit where he was without access to his legal and

personal property. Good cause appearing, the court granted defendants’ motion and vacated the

deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. Defendants have since filed a status report with

the court explaining that plaintiff’s mental health condition has improved and he is now housed

at Pelican Bay State Prison and is participating in the Enhanced Outpatient Program. Since

plaintiff is no longer receiving inpatient care, he is now able to participate in a video deposition.

1

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 64 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 3
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

In accordance with the Local Rules, plaintiff has filed a notice of change of

address with the court. Therein, he asks the court to reconsider its order denying his motion for

appointment of counsel and also asks for an extension of time to conduct discovery in light of his

recent hospitalization for mental health issues. As to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its

order denying him appointment of counsel, the court has construed plaintiff’s motion as a

renewed motion for appointment of counsel. As the court previously advised plaintiff, the

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances to

exist at this time.

As to plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery, the court

finds that there is good cause to re-open discovery and modify the scheduling order in this case. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.

1992). Specifically, plaintiff as well as defendants have demonstrated that discovery could not

be completed in the four months allotted for that phase of the litigation in the court’s scheduling

order due to plaintiff’s hospitalization. Accordingly, the court will now re-set a schedule for this

litigation.

2

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 64 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 3
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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying him

appointment of counsel construed as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 62)

is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (Doc. No. 62)

is granted;

3. The parties may conduct discovery until January 6, 2012. Any motions

necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date;

4. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or

before March 9, 2012. Motions shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 7 of this court’s

order filed March 18, 2010;

5. Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following

adjudication of any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion; and

6. The remainder of the discovery and scheduling order filed on May 27, 2011,

remains in effect.

DATED: October 5, 2011.

DAD:9

mitc1658.41mod(2)

3

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 64 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3