Johnson v. Davis
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Davis, Judge White denied Johnson’s premature summary-judgment motion, denied Kelso’s clarification motion as moot, and denied counsel appointment without prejudice.
Paul David Johnson’s motions were denied; Defendant Kelso’s clarification motion was denied as moot. Johnson may refile the summary-judgment motion if a later briefing schedule affects the case, and the court may reconsider counsel appointment later.
What happened
In Johnson v. Davis, Paul David Johnson’s civil-rights case concerns the transfer of more than 100 prisoners, some infected with COVID-19, from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison around May 26, 2020. Johnson alleges that the transfer resulted in a COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin. The court had found his claims could proceed and had ordered service, but had not yet set a schedule for summary-judgment or other case-dispositive motions.
Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment concerning Defendant Kelso’s liability. The court denied that motion as premature because briefing had not yet been ordered. The court said Johnson may refile it if a related proceeding later produces a briefing schedule affecting this case. The court also denied Kelso’s motion for clarification as moot because briefing was not then due.
The court denied Johnson’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It said the case was at an early stage, making success on the merits premature to assess, but found that Johnson had adequately presented his claims without a lawyer. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order on September 8, 2022.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Davis · No. 5:21-cv-01693
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
Paul David Johnson, representing himself, brought a civil-rights case alleging that the defendants participated in transferring more than 100 prisoners from the California Institute for Men to San Quentin State Prison around May 26, 2020. Some of the transferred prisoners were infected with COVID-19, and Johnson alleged that the transfer resulted in an outbreak at San Quentin.
The court had found Johnson’s claims legally sufficient to proceed and ordered service on August 4, 2022. The service order stated that the court would issue a schedule for summary-judgment or other case-dispositive-motion briefing after common issues were resolved in a related proceeding, No. 22-mc-80066-WHO. At the time of this order, no briefing schedule affecting Johnson’s case had been issued.
Rulings
Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment—a request for judgment without a trial—concerning Defendant Kelso’s liability. The court denied the motion as premature because briefing had not yet been ordered. The court stated that Johnson may refile the motion if and when a briefing schedule affecting this case is issued in the related proceeding.
Defendant Kelso filed a motion for clarification. The court denied that motion as moot because briefing was not due in the case at that time.
Johnson also requested appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that appointment is reserved for exceptional circumstances, considering both the likely success of the claims and the plaintiff’s ability to present them without a lawyer given the complexity of the issues. The court denied the request without prejudice, finding that the case was still at an early stage and that Johnson had adequately presented his claims. The court stated that it could consider appointing counsel later in the proceedings.
The order terminated Docket Nos. 26 and 28. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.