Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01352/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01352-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DEAN PARKS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

T. PETERSON, R.N., and REYES, M.D, 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-1352 EMC (pr)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

AND DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

Defendants' request for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED. 

(Docket # 11.) The Court now sets these new deadlines for the dispositive motion: 

a. No later than November 22, 2012, Defendants must file and serve a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, Defendants must so inform

the Court prior to the date the motion is due. 

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed and served no later than January 4, 2013. 

c. Defendants' reply brief, if any, must be filed and served no later than 

January 18, 2013.

Although the Court provided a Rand notice regarding summary judgment in the order of

service, the Ninth Circuit now requires that Plaintiff be provided a Rand notice regarding summary

judgment at the time a motion for summary judgment is filed. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934,

940-41 (9th Cir. 2012). If Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, they must provide the

Rand notice to Plaintiff at the time they file a motion for summary judgment. 

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the 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 id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on a

request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment

of counsel are not evident at this time. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

(Docket # 9.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2012

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2