Steward v. Stevenson
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-09310
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steward v. Stevenson, Judge Chen denied counsel but granted Jason J. Steward more time to oppose defendants’ pending motion.
Jason J. Steward’s request for appointed counsel was denied, while his deadline to oppose the defendants’ pending motion was extended; the defendants received a later reply deadline.
What happened
In Steward v. Stevenson, Jason J. Steward asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him in his civil case. Defendants had moved for summary judgment, and Steward had not filed his opposition by the extended deadline.
The court denied the request for appointed counsel because it found no exceptional circumstances. It said the issues were not complex, Steward had shown he could explain his claims without a lawyer, and his claims against eight of the eleven defendants had not been exhausted.
Judge Edward M. Chen also granted Steward another extension to file and serve his opposition by March 24, 2023. Defendants’ reply, if any, was due April 7, 2023.
The detailed version
- Steward v. Stevenson · No. 3:20-cv-09310
- Edward Chen
- Feb. 28, 2023
Background
Jason J. Steward brought this action against Stevenson and other defendants. The court had ordered the defendants to respond to one claim in Steward’s First Amended Complaint. After several extensions, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Steward received an extension to oppose that motion, but the deadline passed without an opposition being filed.
Steward had also moved for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). That statute allows a court to appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist requires considering both the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain the claims without a lawyer, taking into account the complexity of the legal issues. The court stated that neither factor alone controls.
The court found no exceptional circumstances. It said the issues were not complex, that Steward’s filings showed he could adequately explain his claims without counsel, and that he had failed to exhaust his claims against eight of the eleven defendants. The court said the claims against the remaining defendants appeared to depend on whether they ensured that Steward received medical care as urgently as he preferred.
Ruling and Deadlines
The court denied Steward’s motion for appointment of counsel. It also granted him an extension to file and serve his opposition to the defendants’ motion by March 24, 2023. The defendants’ reply, if any, was due by April 7, 2023. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 33.
The opinion refers to the defendants’ filing as a motion for summary judgment earlier in the text, but the deadline paragraph refers to an opposition to a motion to dismiss. The order itself does not resolve either motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.