Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06193-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALEXANDRE PINKSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIERRO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6193 REC SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRD

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

(Doc. 125.) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 127.)

 Michael Alexandre Pinkston (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. Request for Judicial Notice

On June 3, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Request for the Court to Take Judicial

Notice of Facts.” In this pleading, Plaintiff explains that he is having difficulty in obtaining

access to some of his property which may contain his deposition transcript. Thus, he has been

delayed in formulating an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Although Plaintiff

did not make a formal request for an extension of time by including it in the caption of the

pleading, he did make such a request in the body. Accordingly, the Request for a third extension

of time is GRANTED. 

B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for An Evidentiary Hearing. Here, Plaintiff

complains again about the difficulty he is having in getting access to his property. It appears that

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 128 Filed 06/22/05 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

Plaintiff has filed some type of internal grievance in an attempt to have the access he seeks but

has been somewhat unsuccessful. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the Court hold an evidentiary

hearing to determine whether another extension of time is warranted and whether the Court

should appoint counsel. 

The Court generally does not hold evidentiary hearings to determine whether extensions

of time are necessary or for the appointment of counsel. As noted above, the Court has already

determined that Plaintiff has shown cause sufficient to warrant the granting of a third extension

of time. Thus, the issue of an extension is resolved. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, the court cannot require

an attorney to represent Plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the 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). Without a reasonable method of securing and

compensating counsel, this Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the

likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (citations

omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 

C. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Third Request for an Extension of time is GRANTED. The Opposition

is due no later than THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this Order. 

2. The Request for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO -SMS Document 128 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2