Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE I. JOHNSON, No. CIV S-06-1745-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SCOT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are the following: (1) plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time to file pre-trial documents (Doc. 24); (2) plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel (Doc. 25); (3) defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion

(Doc. 26); (4) plaintiff’s motion for leave to take the oral depositions of defendants (Doc. 28);

and (5) plaintiff’s motion for judicial intervention regarding service of unserved defendants

Lynch and Martinez (Doc. 29). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 07/27/07 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

2

Addressing plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, the United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case,

the court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff’s

motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 25) is denied.

Plaintiff seeks leave to take the oral depositions of defendants. The motion was

filed on July 20, 2007. Because this request was filed after discovery closed in this action on

May 25, 2007, the request (Doc. 28) is denied as untimely. 

Plaintiff also seeks judicial intervention with respect to service of process on

unserved defendants Lynch and Martinez. Process directed to these defendants was returned

unexecuted on January 25, 2007, because the United States Marshal was unable to identify them

based on the information provided by plaintiff. On February 8, 2007, the court issued an order

advising plaintiff of ways in which he could obtain more identifying information. Attached to

plaintiff’s instant request for judicial intervention is a letter plaintiff sent to prison staff seeking

additional identifying information, and the official reply. Specifically, plaintiff sought the full

names of correctional officers whose lasts names were “Martinez” and “Lynch” and who worked

on the C-Yard, Building 5, at California State Prison – Sacramento, from November 2004

through January 2005. In the reply, the prison litigation coordinator indicated that, at the times

mentioned, no correctional officer named “Lynch” worked on the C-Yard, Building 5, and that

there were five officers named “Martinez” who satisfied the conditions outlined by plaintiff. 

However, as to “Martinez,” plaintiff had not provided enough information to identify the

appropriate correctional officer. In his request for judicial intervention, plaintiff has not

provided any additional information. Therefore, plaintiff has not shown that judicial intervention

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 07/27/07 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

By separate order, the court will direct plaintiff to show cause why defendants 1

Martinez and Lynch should not be dismissed from this action for failure to effect timely service

as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

3

is warranted or would result in discovery of information necessary to identify defendants

Martinez or Lynch. The request (Doc. 29) is, therefore, denied.1

Both parties seek modification of the remainder of the trial schedule established

in the court’s February 8, 2007, scheduling order. Specifically, plaintiff seeks additional time to

file pre-trial documents (Doc. 24), and defendants seek additional time to file a dispositive

motion (Doc. 26). Good cause appearing therefor, defendants’ request is granted. The

dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to September 20, 2007. Given this extension, the

court sua sponte vacates the pre-trial statement filing deadlines and the January 30, 2008, trial

date. At an appropriate stage later in these proceedings, the court will direct the parties to submit

status reports concerning re-scheduling the remainder of this litigation. In the meantime,

because the deadline for plaintiff to submit pre-trial documents is hereby vacated, plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time is denied as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 25) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to take depositions (Doc. 28) is denied as

untimely;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial intervention (Doc. 29) is denied;

4. Defendants’ motion for an extension of the dispositive motion filing

deadline (Doc. 26) is granted;

5. Dispositive motions shall be file no later than September 20, 2007;

6. The deadlines for filing pre-trial statements is vacated;

7. The trial set for January 30, 2008, is vacated; and

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 07/27/07 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

4

8. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file pre-trial documents is

denied as moot. 

DATED: July 26, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 07/27/07 Page 4 of 4