Guy v. Suii
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-03202
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Guy v. Suii, Judge Freeman denied appointed counsel and granted in part Guy’s request for more time after missed depositions.
William Guy’s ability to obtain appointed counsel and the deadline for responding to the defendants’ motion were affected. The defendants received a deadline to file a reply after Guy’s response.
What happened
In William Guy v. Dr. Suii, et al., Guy, a state inmate representing himself, sued prison health-care officials under a federal civil-rights law. The defendants had asked for sanctions after Guy failed to appear for a properly scheduled deposition twice, and Guy sought more time to respond.
Guy asked for 90 more days to obtain counsel, affidavits, and other evidence. He also again asked the court to appoint a lawyer, citing his lack of legal knowledge and his self-represented status.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the request for appointed counsel because Guy showed no exceptional circumstances. She granted in part the request for more time, giving him 56 additional days to file his response, by July 16, 2025, and stating that no further extensions would be granted.
The detailed version
- Guy v. Suii · No. 5:23-cv-03202
- Beth Freeman
- June 5, 2025
Background
William Guy, a state inmate representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Suii, S. Sawyer, and S. Gates. The court had previously found that Guy’s complaint stated claims that could proceed and had ordered service on the defendants.
The defendants filed a second request for terminating sanctions after Guy again failed to appear for a properly scheduled deposition. The court had paused the deadline for dispositive motions and had previously given Guy an extension until June 4, 2025, to respond to the defendants’ motion.
Requests in Docket No. 33
Guy moved for a further 90-day extension to obtain counsel, affidavits, and other evidence. He also renewed his request for court-appointed counsel, relying on his self-represented status and lack of legal knowledge. The court had denied an earlier request for counsel because Guy had not shown exceptional circumstances, and the opinion states that he offered no new grounds.
Rulings
The court denied Guy’s request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances.
The court granted in part Guy’s motion for a third extension of time. It found that 90 days was excessive because the defendants’ motion primarily concerned Guy’s failure to appear twice for properly scheduled depositions. The court granted a 56-day extension and ordered Guy to file his response no later than July 16, 2025. It stated that this was the final extension and that no further extensions would be granted. The defendants’ reply was due 14 days after Guy filed his response.
The order terminated Docket No. 33. It did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims or the defendants’ request for terminating sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.