Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02102/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02102-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Moore
Defendant
Darryl Walker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WALKER, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C/O MOORE,

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-02102-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

AS UNTIMELY

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURTAPPOINTED COUNSEL

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO FILING A MOTION 

UNDER RULE 56(d) WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

(ECF No. 37.)

I. BACKGROUND

Darryl Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

December 19, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) This action now proceeds with the original Complaint, 

against defendant C/O Moore (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the

Eighth Amendment.

1

 

 

1On May 8, 2014, the court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, on Plaintiff’s Rule 41 motion 

to dismiss. (Doc. 11.)

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 5
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

On August 20, 2014, the court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines 

for the parties, including a deadline of April 20, 2015 to complete discovery, and a deadline of 

June 29, 2015 to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 25.) On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

request to extend the discovery deadline for thirty days. (ECF No. 28.) On May 22, 2015, the 

court granted Plaintiff’s request and extended the discovery deadline until June 25, 2015, and 

the deadline for filing dispositive motions until August 28, 2015. (ECF No. 29.) The discovery 

phase for this case is now closed.

On June 29, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34.) On 

August 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 35.) The motion for 

summary judgment is pending.

On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, a motion for 

court-appointed counsel, and a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff’s three motions are now 

before the court.

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff requests the court to compel defendant Moore to respond to Plaintiff’s request 

for production of documents dated June 8, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that as of August 10, 2015, 

defendant Moore had not responded to the discovery request. Plaintiff asserts that he served 

the discovery request in a timely manner and argues that Defendant’s failure to comply with 

discovery has hindered his efforts to obtain evidence to defeat summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely. The deadline to complete discovery in this 

action, including the filing of motions to compel, expired on June 25, 2015, more than two 

months before Plaintiff filed this motion to compel. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that with 

due diligence he could not have completed discovery during the ten-month discovery phase in 

this action which lasted from August 20, 2014 until June 25, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel shall be denied.

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

III. MOTION FOR COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL

This is Plaintiff’s fourth request for appointment of counsel within five months. As 

Plaintiff has been advised, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 

action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an 

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Discussion

Plaintiff offers no argument in support of this motion. Plaintiff was previously advised 

by the court that his case is not exceptional under the legal standard the court is required to 

follow. A review of the record in this case shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately 

communicates, and is able to articulate his claims. The legal issue in this case, whether 

Defendant used excessive force against Plaintiff, is not complex, and this court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily. Further, at this stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a 

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion 

for appointment of counsel shall be denied.

IV. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment, until after he has conducted further discovery. 

“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 

cause, extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56(d)(2), if Plaintiff shows by affidavit or declaration that for specified reasons he 

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 10/06/15 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

cannot present facts to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court may defer 

ruling on the motion to allow time for further discovery. In order to gain a continuance under 

Rule 56(d), Plaintiff must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would 

reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City and 

County of Sacramento, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006); Tuvalu v. Woodford, No. CIV S04-1724 RRB KJM P, 2007 WL 2900175, at 1-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007).

Discussion

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to grant him an extension of time to file 

an opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff already filed an 

opposition on August 5, 2015, and the motion for summary judgment has been deemed 

submitted to the court under Rule 230(l).

2

 Plaintiff offers no explanation why he did not file a 

motion for extension of time before now.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to defer the court’s ruling on Defendants’ summary 

judgment motion to allow more time for discovery, Plaintiff has not complied with the 

requirements of Rule 56(d). Plaintiff declares that the correctional officers’ declarations 

submitted by Defendants in favor of their motion are a “fabrication,” and that “there was never 

a required incident report as [to] C.D.C.R. policy and procedure to support documents used in 

support of Defendant’s request for summary judgment.” (Pltf’s Decl, ECF No. 37 at 3.) This 

is not sufficient under Rule 56(d). To defer the court’s ruling, Plaintiff must submit a 

declaration establishing the following: facts indicating a likelihood that controverting evidence 

 

2 Local Rule 230(l) provides as follows: 

Motions in Prisoner Actions. All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, 

filed in actions wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the 

record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be noticed on the 

motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding 

party not more than twenty-one (21),days after the date of service of the motion. A responding party who has no 

opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the 

motion in question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition 

may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of 

sanctions. The moving party may, not more than seven (7) days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, 

serve and file a reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has 

expired.

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 10/06/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

exists as to a material fact; specific reasons why such evidence was not discovered or obtained 

earlier in the proceedings (i.e. “good cause”); the steps or procedures by which he proposes to 

obtain such evidence within a reasonable time; and an explanation of how those facts will 

suffice to defeat the pending motion for summary judgment (i.e., to rebut the movant's 

allegations of no genuine issue of material fact). Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1101. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, without prejudice to filing a motion under 

Rule 56(d) within thirty days, providing a declaration complying with the requirements of Rule 

56(d).

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on September 14, 2015, is DENIED as 

untimely;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for court-appointed counsel, filed on September 14, 2015, is 

DENIED without prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment is DENIED, without prejudice to filing a motion under Rule 

56(d) within thirty days of the date of service of this order, as discussed in this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 10/06/15 Page 5 of 5