Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05633/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05633-9/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ty Hertig, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Steve Cambra, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-05633-ROS (PC)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Friedman’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

(Doc. 41), which will be granted. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension

of Time to Respond to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 38), and Motion for Appointment

of Counsel (Doc. 37), which will both be denied.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order.

Defendant seeks to modify the Court’s October 23, 2009 Scheduling Order to extend

the deadline for dispositive motions by 30 days. Defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment on April 21, 2010, but the deadline for dispositive motions was March 22, 2010.

Defendant argues he acquired new counsel who needed additional time to prepare the

motion. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and it will be granted.

Case 1:04-cv-05633-ROS Document 45 Filed 05/07/10 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 -

II. Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Scheduling Order

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to the Court’s October 22,

2009 Scheduling and Discovery Order but does not explain why he would like to respond to

the Order. As the Court will be issuing an amended scheduling order, Plaintiff’s motion for

an extension of time to respond is moot and will be denied.

III. Motion for Appointment of Class Counsel 

In proceedings in forma pauperis, a district court “may request an attorney to

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The decision to

appoint counsel is within the “sound discretion” of the trial court, but is granted only in

“exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.

2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s only remaining claim

alleges Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and seeks an

injunction requiring Defendants to remove a “false report authored by Defendant D.

Edmonds, RN” from Plaintiff’s CDCR file. (Doc. 17 at 14). Plaintiff has not shown a

likelihood of success on this claim or other exceptional circumstances meriting appointment

of counsel. The motion will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order (Doc. 41)

IS GRANTED. The dispositive motions deadline is extended to April 21, 2010.

FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 38) IS

DENIED as moot. 

FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Class Counsel

(Doc. 37) IS DENIED. 

DATED this 6th day of May, 2010.

Case 1:04-cv-05633-ROS Document 45 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2