Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01452/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01452-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER J.D. CLARK, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1452 GEB DAD PS

vs.

POLICE OFFICER HANN, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se on his first amended complaint. The pleading was

filed after the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, determined that plaintiff’s proposed

first amended complaint was deficient, and provided plaintiff with a final opportunity to state

cognizable claims. By order filed December 1, 2009, the court granted plaintiff a lengthy

continuance for the purpose of opposing defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss. Before the

court is plaintiff’s motion for a further continuance of unspecified length and for appointment of

counsel.

Three factors are relevant to the determination of whether counsel should be

appointed to represent a plaintiff in a civil case: (1) the plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the

efforts already made by the plaintiff to secure counsel, and (3) whether the plaintiff’s claims have

merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 2:09-cv-01452-GEB-DAD Document 67 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Appointment of counsel is not a matter of right. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269

(9th Cir. 1982). Here, plaintiff paid the required filing fee and has not made any showing of

indigency. Plaintiff’s motion provides no details about efforts to secure counsel but does reveal

that plaintiff has obtained counsel to assist him with some of his claims and may obtain counsel

to assist him with other claims. As to the third factor, while the court has not prejudged the case,

plaintiff has not shown that this court has jurisdiction over all of his claims or that any of his

claims have merit such that counsel should be appointed. For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s

motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion fails to make a showing of good cause for a second continuance

to file opposition to motions that were filed three months ago, particularly when the pending

motions include arguments raised in defendants’ previous motions to dismiss. Moreover,

plaintiff’s request for second continuance is not timely because plaintiff filed the request on the

date his opposition was due. See Local Rule 144(d) (requiring that parties seek a necessary

extension as soon as the need becomes apparent and looking with disfavor on requests brought

on the required filing date for the document). In the interests of justice, the pro se plaintiff will

be granted a final extension of time to Wednesday, February 10, 2010, to file and serve

opposition to defendants’ motions. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file and serve opposition

on or before the specified date may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the

pending motions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 1, 2010 motion for an indefinite continuance and to

appoint counsel (Doc. No. 65) is denied.

2. Plaintiff is granted a final extension of time to Wednesday, February 10, 2010,

to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ pending motions to dismiss.

3. Defendants’ replies, if any, shall be filed and served on or before Wednesday,

February 17, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01452-GEB-DAD Document 67 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. Defendants’ motions to dismiss will be heard on Friday, February 19, 2010, as

noticed by defendants.

DATED: February 5, 2010.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.prose\clark1452.cont.counsel.den

Case 2:09-cv-01452-GEB-DAD Document 67 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 3