Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00670/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00670-12/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARL CHILDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-670-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This order addresses five motions pending before the court. See ECF Nos. 56, 

58, 59, 60, and 62. 

I. MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

 Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel defendants to respond to his discovery requests. 

ECF Nos. 56, 58. In response, defendants admit error, apologize, and explain: “Upon receiving 

Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ counsel reviewed the proofs of service for Defendants’ discovery 

responses and learned that they were apparently sent to an R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 

post office box, instead of to the institution’s street address.” ECF No. 57 at 1. Defendants stated 

that they served plaintiff with their discovery responses soon after receiving plaintiff’s motion 

and identifying their error. Id. at 2. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 68 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 5
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 

 Defendants’ representation to the court that they have served plaintiff with their discovery 

responses moots plaintiff’s motions to compel those discovery responses. Accordingly, the court 

will deny plaintiff’s motions to compel. If plaintiff contends that defendants have not in fact 

served the responses or if plaintiff believes the responses do not comply with the discovery rules, 

he may file another motion to compel. 

II. MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

 Plaintiff’s first motion to compel requested that the court set new dates “in the case and 

for trial.” ECF No. 56 at 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a separate motion that elaborates on his 

request to modify the scheduling order and specifically asks for additional time (1) to conduct 

discovery and to file motions to compel discovery, (2) to file dispositive motions, and (3) “to 

request a settlement.” ECF No. 62 at 1, 3. Defendants do not oppose an extension of the time for 

the filing of dispositive motions,1

 but do oppose any other modification of the scheduling order. 

ECF No. 57 at 2; ECF No. 66 at 1-3. 

A. Time to File Dispositive Motions and “To Request a Settlement” 

 Because defendants do not oppose the request, the court will modify the scheduling order 

and extend the deadline to file dispositive motions. However, plaintiff’s motion is denied to the 

extent it seeks to modify the scheduling order to extend the time “to request a settlement,” as the 

scheduling order does not place any time restriction on such requests. See ECF No. 35; see also 

ECF No. 66 at 3 (“Although Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely false, 

they would not oppose a settlement conference once the dispositive motions are resolved.”). 

 B. Time to Conduct Discovery and to File Motions to Compel Discovery 

 The scheduling order stated: “The parties may conduct discovery until October 17, 2014. 

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

///// 

///// 

 1

 In fact, defendants have filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file a motion for 

summary judgment. See ECF No. 60. 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 68 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 5
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 

3 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than August 8, 2014.” ECF 

No. 35 at 4.2 Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to modify those deadlines. ECF No. 66 at 2. 

 A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline 

despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1992). 

 Plaintiff alleges that because he did not receive defendants’ discovery responses until 

early January 2015, he has not had a sufficient amount of time to determine if he needs to file 

additional discovery requests or motions to compel. ECF No. 62 at 1-2. Good cause appearing, 

the court will modify the scheduling order to provide additional time for the parties to conduct 

discovery, file motions to compel, and file requests for discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure3

 31, 33, 34, or 36. See also Calloway v. Veal, 571 F. App’x 626, 627 (9th Cir. 

2014) (reversing grant of summary judgment for defendants because plaintiff did not have “an 

appropriate opportunity to conduct discovery,” where “[t]he magistrate judge’s scheduling order 

gave the parties a mere three-and-a-half months from the filing of the answer to complete 

discovery, and an additional two-and-a-half months to file dispositive motions.”). 

III. MOTION FOR INVESTIGATOR FEES 

 Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for investigator fees. ECF No. 59. “A 

court may only authorize the use of public funds for indigent litigants when authorized by 

Congress. The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize federal courts to spend public funds 

on investigators.” Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 489 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citations omitted). 

Because the in forma pauperis statute does not provide for such an expense, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(c), plaintiff’s motion for investigator fees is denied. 

///// 

 2

 The court subsequently granted defendants’ motion for an extension of time to serve 

their discovery responses. See ECF No. 55 (allowing defendants to serve their responses as late 

as December 15, 2014). 

3

 All subsequent references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 68 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

4 

IV. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 Plaintiff again requests that the court appoint counsel. ECF No. 62; see also ECF Nos. 15 

(requesting the appointment of counsel) and 17 (denying the appointment of counsel). District 

courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in §1983 cases. Mallard v. 

U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request 

an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 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). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 

consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no 

exceptional circumstances in this case. 

V. ORDER 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 56, 58) are denied as moot. 

2. Plaintiff’s request to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 62) is granted in part 

 and denied in part. The discovery and scheduling order is modified as follows: 

a. The parties may conduct discovery until July 13, 2015. 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 April 15, 2015. 

b. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before October 13, 2015. Motions 

shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 8 of the order filed February 21, 

2014. 

c. All other dates identified in the scheduling order (ECF No. 35) shall remain 

in effect. 

3. Because this order modifies the discovery and scheduling order to provide 

 additional time for both plaintiff and defendants to file dispositive motions, 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 68 Filed 02/13/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

5 

 defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary 

 judgment (ECF No. 60) is denied as moot. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for investigator fees (ECF No. 59) is denied. 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 62) is denied. 

DATED: February 12, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00670-TLN-EFB Document 68 Filed 02/13/15 Page 5 of 5