Thornton v. Medvin
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-01956
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Thornton v. Medvin, Judge Orrick extended Thornton’s deadline but denied his request for appointed counsel.
The order directly affected Simon Thornton by extending his filing deadline and denying his request for appointed counsel; it did not decide the pending summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Thornton v. Medvin, Simon Thornton asked for more time to oppose two pending motions for summary judgment and asked the court to appoint a lawyer for him.
The court extended the deadline for Thornton’s oppositions to June 1, 2022. It explained that appointed counsel is reserved for exceptional circumstances and found that Thornton’s filings were clear and that the case did not involve complex legal issues.
The court granted the motion to extend time and denied the motion for appointed counsel. Judge Orrick said he could reconsider appointing counsel later if circumstances changed.
The detailed version
- Thornton v. Medvin · No. 3:21-cv-01956
- William Orrick
- Apr. 19, 2022
Motions and background
Simon Thornton moved to extend the time to file oppositions to two pending motions for summary judgment. He also moved for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Extension of time
The court granted Thornton’s motion to extend time. His oppositions to the two summary-judgment motions had to be filed by June 1, 2022.
Appointment of counsel
The court explained that appointing counsel for an indigent litigant under Section 1915 is within the trial court’s discretion and generally requires “exceptional circumstances.” That evaluation considers the likelihood of success on the merits and the litigant’s ability to present claims without a lawyer, in light of the complexity of the legal issues. The court also noted that the need for discovery or the fact that a litigant might benefit from a lawyer does not necessarily make a case complex.
The court found that Thornton had not shown exceptional circumstances. It stated that his filings were clear and that the lawsuit did not present complex legal issues. The court therefore denied Thornton’s motion for appointment of counsel, while stating that it could reconsider the issue later if circumstances warranted. The Clerk was directed to terminate Docket Nos. 12 and 23.
Disposition
The motion to extend time was granted, and the motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The order was signed by United States District Judge William H. Orrick.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.