Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05158/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05158-4/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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON DAVE WELCH,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

COUNTY OF SONOMA; CALIFORNIA

FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.;

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL;

JIM PICCININI, Sonoma County Sheriff;

Lieutenant SANDY GAESLIN; Lieutenant

L. W. ERSKINE; Deputy JODY OLNEY;

Deputy RICK BOSTIC; JANE AND JOHN

DOES, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputies;

JOHN AND JANE DOES, Chief Medical

Officer, Officers, and Nurses at Sonoma

County Main Adult Detention Facility;

ROGER A. KLEIN, M.D.; DREW

HITTENBERGER, M.D.; JOHN HUBERT,

M.D.; JIM LUDERS, M.D.; MIKE E.

DAGEY, R.N.; JANE and JOHN DOES,

City of Santa Rosa Police Officers;

Lieutenant PAUL HENRY; Officer MARY

LOU HERNANDEZ; JOHN DOE,

Chairman of Sonoma County Board of

Supervisors;

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5158 WHA (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND EXPERTS;

GRANTING IN PART

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docket No. 140)

This is a civil rights action filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se. Renewed

summary judgment motions have been filed separately by defendants Sonoma County,

Geaslin, and Olney (the “County defendants”), and by defendant Klein. Defendants Dagey,

Hibbard and Luders have also filed a separate summary judgment motion. Plaintiff has filed

a motion for appointment of counsel, for appointment of medical experts, and for an extension

Case 3:04-cv-05158-WHA Document 144 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 4
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

of time to oppose the summary judgment motions. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 confers on a district court only the power

to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of

counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). In short, the Court

has only the power to ask pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff, not the power to “appoint”

counsel. Plaintiff has effectively litigated this action for over eight years in the district and

appellate courts without assistance of counsel or medical experts. There are no unusual

circumstances about this case that warrant appointment of counsel or experts at this time. 

Following ruling on the summary judgment motions, the need to appoint counsel and/or

medical experts will be reconsidered sua sponte. 

Plaintiff has requested an indefinite extension of time to oppose the motions. Plaintiff

has had an excessive amount of time to prepare his case and oppose the motions. The conduct

at issue occurred over ten years ago, he filed the case over eight years ago, the defendants

were served more than one year ago, and it has been more than five months since the

defendants initially filed their summary judgment motions, which are substantially duplicated

by their renewed motions. Additionally, plaintiff has already received at least six extensions

of time in this case, including an extension of several months to oppose the summary

judgment motions while certain defendants renewed their motions to correct a technical

deficiency. Plaintiff’s present motion states that he is under “acute” psychiatric care, and

requests an indefinite extension until he is “fit.” The motion is not accompanied by any

declaration or letter from his treating physician explaining his current condition, excusing his

ability to continue to litigate this case as he has done for the last eight years, or describing

how long his treatment has been going on or is expected to continue. Indeed, in his motion

plaintiff indicates that he has been able to read the defendants’ motions. As a result, there is

no evidence to justify further extending a deadline that has already been amply extended in a

Case 3:04-cv-05158-WHA Document 144 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 4
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

case in which plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient capability to litigate his claims and has had

many years to prepare them. Accordingly, only a short and final extension of time will be

granted, to and including January 22, 2013, in which plaintiff may file his opposition to

defendants’ motions. No further extension of time will be granted. Plaintiff may oppose the

summary judgment motions in separate oppositions or in a single, consolidated opposition. 

Plaintiff should re-read the warning provided below. Defendants’ reply briefs are due no later

than 14 days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion (dkt. 140) is GRANTED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3 , 2013. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.04\WELCH158.EOT3.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-05158-WHA Document 144 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 4
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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of

material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of

your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided

in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and documents

and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own

evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If

summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 3:04-cv-05158-WHA Document 144 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 4