Penn v. Allen
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-00126
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Penn v. Allen, Judge Corley granted defendants more time to file a dispositive motion but denied Penn’s request for appointed counsel.
Marlin A. Penn’s request for appointed counsel was denied, while the defendants received additional time to file a dispositive motion. The underlying civil-rights claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
Marlin A. Penn, a California prisoner representing himself, filed this civil-rights case against T. Allen and others. The order addressed two requests while the case continued.
The court granted defendants’ request for more time to file a dispositive motion. The motion was due July 17, 2023; any opposition was due August 24, 2023; and any reply was due within 14 days after an opposition was filed.
The court denied Penn’s request for a lawyer because the case was not sufficiently complex and Penn had not shown that he could not present his claims effectively. Judge ACQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY stated that the court could refer the matter for pro bono counsel later if necessary.
The detailed version
- Penn v. Allen · No. 3:23-cv-00126
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 12, 2023
Background
This is a civil-rights case brought by Marlin A. Penn, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, against T. Allen and other defendants. The order ruled on docket numbers 21 and 24.
Extension of Time
The defendants requested additional time to file a dispositive motion, meaning a motion intended to resolve claims without a trial. The court found good cause and granted the request. The defendants’ motion was due on or before July 17, 2023. If Penn filed an opposition, it was due on or before August 24, 2023, and the defendants’ reply was due within 14 days after the opposition was filed.
Appointment of Counsel
Penn requested appointment of a lawyer. The court explained that there is no general right to appointed counsel in a civil case and that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is reserved for exceptional circumstances and lies within the trial court’s discretion. The court found that, at this stage, the issues were not sufficiently complex and Penn had not shown that he was unable to present his claims effectively. The court therefore denied Penn’s motion for appointment of counsel. It stated that, if a referral for pro bono counsel became necessary later, the court would issue a referral order on its own, and directed Penn not to request appointment of counsel in that court again.
Disposition
Judge ACQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY granted the defendants’ motion for an extension of time and denied Penn’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.