Jurado v. Ramirez

Background

Robert Jurado, identified as an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. In a letter, he asked for a second extension of time to file a second amended complaint, appointment of counsel, and legal advice about whether to attach printouts of his court pleadings.

The court had previously given Jurado a two-month extension through June 21, 2021. The opinion also refers to an earlier order dismissing the action with permission to amend and directing Jurado to correct identified deficiencies.

Rulings

The court granted in part and denied in part the request for a second extension of time. It gave Jurado an additional extension through July 30, 2021, to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the earlier dismissal order. The court stated that failure to file the complaint as required would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

The court denied the request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances, but did so without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own if circumstances later required it. The court explained that, because there was no operative complaint, it could not assess Jurado’s likelihood of success or his ability to present his claims without a lawyer.

The court also denied the request for legal advice. It explained that it could not advise litigants about their legal choices or tell them what materials to include in their filings. The court requested that San Quentin correctional officials assist Jurado in accessing the law library and directed the clerk to send a courtesy copy of the order to the prison’s litigation coordinator.

Effect of the Order

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.’s order addressed filing time, counsel, and legal assistance; it did not decide the merits of Jurado’s underlying civil-rights claims. The order terminated the docket entry containing Jurado’s requests.