Barno v. Padilla
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-03886
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Barno v. Padilla, Judge Illston granted Barno’s deadline extension but denied his request for appointed counsel.
Rodney Bernard Barno received additional time to respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion but was denied appointed counsel. The defendants received a new deadline for any reply.
What happened
In Barno v. Padilla, Rodney Bernard Barno asked for a second extension to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He said limited access to the law library, which was closed during the holidays, prevented him from filing on time.
The court granted a 14-day extension. Barno’s opposition was due January 21, 2022, and the defendants’ reply, if any, was due February 4, 2022. The court said no further extensions should be expected.
Judge Susan Illston denied Barno’s request for appointed counsel. The court explained that counsel may be appointed for a civil litigant in exceptional circumstances, considering both the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims given the legal issues’ complexity. The court noted that Barno had adequately explained his claims without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Barno v. Padilla · No. 3:20-cv-03886
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Rodney Bernard Barno requested a second extension of the deadline to oppose the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He said he needed more time because his access to the law library was limited and the library had been closed because of the Christmas and New Year holidays. Barno also requested appointment of counsel to represent him.
Deadline ruling
The court granted Barno’s request for a 14-day extension. It set January 21, 2022, as the deadline for Barno to file and serve his opposition. It set February 4, 2022, as the deadline for defendants to file and serve any reply. The court stated that no further extensions of those deadlines should be expected.
Counsel ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a district court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. The court said this requires considering both the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate the claims without a lawyer in light of the legal issues’ complexity. The court denied Barno’s request for appointment of counsel and noted that he had been able to adequately articulate his claims without counsel.
What the order did not decide
This order did not decide the defendants’ motion for summary judgment or the merits of Barno’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.