Carney v. Cuevas
- William Orrick
- 3:18-cv-03644
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carney v. Cuevas, Judge Orrick denied Carney’s request for appointed counsel and extended his deadline to oppose summary judgment.
Frederick Rydell Carney’s request for appointed counsel was denied, and his deadline to oppose the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was extended. The order also set the deadline for the defendants’ reply.
What happened
In Carney v. Cuevas, Frederick Rydell Carney asked the court to appoint a lawyer after he could not attend what he thought was a hearing on the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court clarified that no hearing would occur unless it found one necessary.
The court denied Carney’s request for appointed counsel. It said he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for appointment, because his filings were clear and the case did not involve complex legal issues.
Judge William H. Orrick extended Carney’s deadline to file an opposition to January 13, 2020. The order said that if Carney did not file by then, he would waive his right to oppose the motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due within 15 days after the opposition was filed.
The detailed version
- Carney v. Cuevas · No. 3:18-cv-03644
- William Orrick
- Nov. 27, 2019
Background
Frederick Rydell Carney sent the court a letter apologizing for being unable to attend a hearing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and asking the court to appoint counsel. The court explained that it would not hold a hearing unless it determined that one was necessary.
Appointment of counsel
The court denied Carney’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is discretionary and is allowed only in “exceptional circumstances.” The court said that determining whether exceptional circumstances exist requires considering the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain his claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the legal issues.
The court found that Carney had not shown exceptional circumstances. It stated that his filings were clear and that the lawsuit did not present complex legal issues. The court also noted that the need for discovery or the fact that a pro se litigant—someone representing himself without a lawyer—might be better served with counsel does not necessarily make the issues complex.
Opposition deadline
The court extended Carney’s deadline to file an opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion to January 13, 2020. The order stated that if Carney did not file an opposition by that date, he would be deemed to have waived his right to file one, and the motion would be ready for a ruling. The defendants’ reply would be due within 15 days after the opposition was filed.
Judge William H. Orrick signed the order. The supplied case information identifies the court as the Northern District of California, while the opinion’s heading identifies the Eastern District of California.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.