Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05445/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05445-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK J. SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05445-SI 

ORDER SETTING NEW DEADLINES, 

DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, 

AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

GAONA

Re: Dkt. Nos. 47, 49

Plaintiff has requested a 60-day extension of the deadline to file his opposition to defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration, the request is GRANTED. Docket No. 

47. The court now sets the following new briefing schedule on defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition no later than February 26, 2021. Defendants 

must file and serve their reply, if any, no later than March 19, 2021. No further extensions of these 

deadlines should be expected.

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the deadline indicates that one reason he needs 

additional time to prepare his opposition is the very limited law library access in prison. One way 

to address at least part of the problem is to provide him with the legal authorities cited by defendants 

so that he need not use his limited law library access to obtain and read those cases. No later than 

November 25, 2021, defendants must send to plaintiff a copy of each case, statute, and rule cited in 

their memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff has filed a third request that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. 

Docket No. 49. 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 

Case 3:19-cv-05445-SI Document 50 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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 present. There does not appear to be a 

likelihood of success on the merits; plaintiff was able to adequately articulate his claims pro se; and 

plaintiff’s claims do not appear to be particularly complex. The court also notes that plaintiff already 

has propounded discovery requests, moved to compel discovery responses, moved for 

reconsideration of an order, and moved to compel an answer to his amended complaint – all of 

which suggest he is able to litigate effectively on his own behalf. The third request for appointment 

of counsel therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 49.

Finally, unserved defendant Gaona will be dismissed. In a May 6, 2020 order, the court 

explained that the Marshal was unable to serve process on defendants Golden and Gaona, and 

ordered plaintiff to provide information needed for service of process. The court warned plaintiff 

that each of these defendants would be dismissed “if plaintiff does not provide an address for service 

by the deadline or if the defendant cannot be served with the information plaintiff does provide.” 

Docket No. 33. Plaintiff provided an address at which to attempt to serve defendant Gaona but did 

not provide any information to enable service of process on defendant Golden. The court dismissed 

Golden and ordered the Marshal to attempt service on Gaona at the address provided by plaintiff. 

Docket No. 36. The Marshal returned the summons unexecuted on August 21, 2020, reporting that 

he was unable to locate Gaona at the address provided. See Docket No. 45. Because Gaona could 

not be served with process with the information provided by plaintiff, defendant Gaona is dismissed 

from this action without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action against Gaona if he ever locates 

that defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05445-SI Document 50 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2