Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01057/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01057-18/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

U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESHA M. CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01057 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL

(Doc. 73)

Plaintiff Desha M. Carter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial

commencing on January 19, 2010. On December 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that

the trial dated be postponed for sixty days. Plaintiff states that he will be released from prison eleven

days after the trial, and that the additional time will allow Plaintiff to obtain counsel.

At the pretrial conference on December 15, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to

make one phone call to attorney Quentin B. Simms. This phone call was solely for the purpose of

Plaintiff possibly obtaining representation in time for trial. According to Plaintiff, he made this

phone call at approximately 9:15 AM on December 17, 2009. Plaintiff complains that prison

officials should have permitted Plaintiff to call at 10 AM, what Plaintiff describes as a “functioning

hour.” Plaintiff was only able to reach the answering machine.

Reaching only the answering machine is not good cause for postponement of this trial. 

Plaintiff was fully capable of leaving a message for Mr. Simms to ascertain if he was willing to

represent Plaintiff in this case. The Court warned Plaintiff that this trial would be postponed only

1

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 81 Filed 01/05/10 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

if Mr. Simms submitted a written declaration to the court by December 21, 2009 stating that he was

now representing Plaintiff in this action. No such declaration has been filed.

Plaintiff contends that there is no harm in postponing the trial for sixty days after Plaintiff’s

release, since the Court would postpone the trial if counsel had been obtained. This argument

ignores the fact that this case has been pending before the Court since 2005. Plaintiff has had other

opportunities to seek counsel prior to the trial date and was unsuccessful. Plaintiff offers no good

cause for postponement now. In addition, this Court is double and triple booked with other jury

trials up to and including April of 2011, some fifteen months from now.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a continuance

of trial to obtain counsel, filed on December 29, 2009, is DENIED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-01057-LJO -DLB Document 81 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2