Rouse v. Pitkin
- Alex Tse
- 3:21-cv-05493
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rouse v. Pitkin, Judge Tse allowed fee-free filing, denied counsel and several requests, and extended deadlines.
Xezakia Rouse and Gary Pitkin, including Pitkin’s counsel of record, David C. Jones.
What happened
In Rouse v. Pitkin, Xezakia Rouse, who was representing himself, asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, obtain appointed counsel, extend his response deadline, require Gary Pitkin to help prepare a scheduling order, receive a subpoena, and treat requests for admission as admitted.
The court granted Rouse’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and granted his request for more time to respond to Pitkin’s pending motion to dismiss. It denied Rouse’s requests for appointed counsel and for an order requiring Pitkin to work with him on a joint scheduling order. It denied without prejudice Rouse’s subpoena request and his request to deem requests for admission admitted. The court also continued the initial case-management conference and barred Rouse from contacting Pitkin directly about the litigation.
Judge Alex Tse issued the order on October 5, 2021. The order addressed case-management, filing-fee, counsel, and discovery-related requests; it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Rouse v. Pitkin · No. 3:21-cv-05493
- Alex Tse
- Oct. 5, 2021
Background
Xezakia Rouse, proceeding without a lawyer, filed several requests while Gary Pitkin’s motion to dismiss was pending. Rouse asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, requested appointed counsel, sought more time to respond to the motion to dismiss, asked the court to require Pitkin to help create a joint scheduling order, requested issuance and service of a subpoena, and moved to have requests for admission treated as admitted.
Rulings
The court granted Rouse’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee after finding that he could not afford it.
The court denied Rouse’s requests for appointed counsel. It explained that people generally do not have a right to appointed counsel in civil cases and that appointment requires exceptional circumstances. At that stage, the court found that Rouse had not shown exceptional circumstances.
The court granted Rouse’s request for an extension of time to respond to Pitkin’s pending motion to dismiss. Rouse’s opposition was due January 3, 2022, and Pitkin’s reply was due January 17, 2022. The court vacated the hearing and said it would reset the hearing if necessary.
The court denied Rouse’s request to require Pitkin to work with him on a joint scheduling order. The court also ordered Rouse not to contact Pitkin directly about the litigation because Pitkin was represented by counsel; communications had to go through Pitkin’s counsel of record, David C. Jones of the Napa City Attorney’s Office.
The court denied without prejudice Rouse’s request for issuance and service of a subpoena and his motion to deem requests for admission admitted. “Without prejudice” means the order did not bar Rouse from potentially making those requests again.
The court continued the initial case-management conference to February 11, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., by video conference. It allowed the parties to file separate case-management statements, due February 4, 2022.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural order addressing filing fees, appointed counsel, deadlines, communications, discovery requests, and scheduling. The court did not rule on the merits of the case or decide Pitkin’s pending motion to dismiss.
Judge Alex Tse issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.