Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05935/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05935-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

*E-FILED - 8/2/10*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD B. HALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5935 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docket Nos. 20, 24)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against prison officials. Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for counsel and defendants’ motion for

extension of time to file their dispositive motion.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (docket no. 24) is DENIED for want of

exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also

Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex and plaintiff has thus far

been able to adequately present his claims. This denial is without prejudice to the court’s sua sponte

appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such

appointment.

Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file their dispositive motion is GRANTED. 

Defendants shall file their dispositive motion by July 9, 2010. Plaintiff’s opposition to the 

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.09\Hall935EOT-Atty.wpd

Case 5:09-cv-05935-RMW Document 64 Filed 08/02/10 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

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel; Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.09\Hall935EOT-Atty.wpd 2

dispositive motion shall be due no later than thirty (30) days from the filing date of defendants’

motion. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen (15) days after

the date plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

This order terminates docket nos. 20, 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/30/10 _________________________

 RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05935-RMW Document 64 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2