Guzman v. Jones
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-03757-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mayito Guzman v. D.DORSEY, Judge Gilliam denied counsel without prejudice and granted more time for defendants’ dispositive motion.
Mayito Guzman’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, while defendants received 60 days to file a dispositive motion and the parties received related briefing deadlines.
What happened
Mayito Guzman v. D.DORSEY, et al. is a civil-rights case brought by an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer. The parties asked the court to decide whether Guzman should receive appointed counsel and whether defendants should receive more time to file a dispositive motion.
The court denied Guzman’s request for appointed counsel because the case was still at an early stage, his chances of success were unclear, he had adequately presented his claims, and the issues did not appear unusually complex. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required it.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the request for more time. Defendants must file their dispositive motion within 60 days of the order, and the order sets deadlines for Guzman’s opposition and defendants’ reply.
The detailed version
- Guzman v. Jones · No. 4:19-cv-03757-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 25, 2021
Background
Mayito Guzman, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at San Quentin State Prison. The court considered two requests: Guzman’s request for appointed counsel and the parties’ request to extend the deadline for filing a dispositive motion, meaning a motion intended to resolve claims without a trial.
Appointment of counsel
Guzman asked the court to appoint a lawyer because he could not afford one, his incarceration and limited law-library access made litigation difficult, and he believed the case required substantial legal knowledge, investigation, and discovery. The court explained that people generally have no right to appointed counsel in civil cases, although a court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant when exceptional circumstances exist. That assessment considers both the plaintiff’s likelihood of success and the plaintiff’s ability to present the claims in light of the legal issues’ complexity.
The court found that Guzman’s likelihood of success was unclear at this early stage, but that he had adequately presented his claims without a lawyer. The court also found that the issues did not appear unusually complex and that the record did not show discovery would be so complex as to require appointed counsel. The court therefore denied the request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances, without prejudice to appointing counsel later if circumstances required it.
Extension of time and disposition
The court granted the parties’ request to reset the dispositive-motion deadline. Defendants must file their dispositive motion within 60 days of the order. Guzman’s opposition must be filed and served no later than 28 days after the motion is filed, and defendants’ reply must be filed no later than 14 days after the opposition is filed. The motion will be considered submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Guzman’s request for appointment of counsel and granted the parties’ request for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion. The order terminated docket entries 25 and 26.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.