Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00206/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00206-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

17-cv-0206-WQH-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DICKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GILBERT MENDOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-0206-WQH-AGS

ORDER REGARDING DICKEY’S 

LETTERS

(ECF Nos. 17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 31)

Dickey has not been shy about writing the Court about his concerns. (See ECF Nos. 

17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 31.) In his latest missives, Dickey raises three distinct requests, which 

may be construed as motions to: (1) conduct legal research on Proposition 57 for him, 

(2) appoint counsel for him, and (3) extend his response deadline to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss.

A. Legal Research

Dickey’s request for the Court to conduct legal research on his behalf (ECF No. 28) 

is improper and is therefore DENIED. The Court may not “inject itself into the adversary 

process on behalf of” any litigant. Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 (9th Cir. 1986); 

see also id. at 1365 n.5 (warning that the “trial court is under no obligation to become an 

‘advocate’ for or to assist and guide the pro se layman through the trial thicket”) (citations 

omitted).

Case 3:17-cv-00206-WQH-AGS Document 36 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-cv-0206-WQH-AGS

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

B. Appointed Counsel

This Court previously denied Dickey’s request to appoint him counsel because he 

failed to show extraordinary circumstances. (ECF No. 13.) While Dickey re-asserts that he 

has a severe mental illness and is on prescription medication (see, e.g., ECF No. 19, at 1), 

he again failed to attach any supporting documentation and he still seems able to articulate 

the facts of his claim. See Meeks v. Nunez, Case No. 13cv973-GPC(BGS), 2017 WL 

476425, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (“An incapacitating mental disability may be 

grounds for appointment of counsel in some cases, but a plaintiff making that argument 

must present substantial evidence of incompetence.”) (citation omitted). Thus, the renewed 

requests for appointed counsel (ECF Nos. 17, 19, 22, 31) are DENIED.

C. Response Deadline

Finally, Dickey’s last letter may be construed, in part, as a motion to extend his 

response deadline. But Dickey already filed a timely response to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 20, 26.) In fact, Dickey even filed a second response, which the 

Court accepted although it was filed almost two weeks after the deadline and Dickey never 

received authorization for supplemental briefing. (See ECF Nos. 32–33.) Thus, Dickey’s 

motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 31) is DENIED as moot.

Dated: October 31, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00206-WQH-AGS Document 36 Filed 10/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2