Smith v. Schuyler
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-03864
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Smith v. Schuyler, Judge Corley extended briefing deadlines and denied Larry Smith’s request for appointed counsel.
Larry Smith and the defendants whose summary-judgment briefing deadlines were changed, including Drs. Singh and Kalinjian, Kathryn Bergen, and Doherty.
What happened
In Smith v. Schuyler, Larry Smith, a California prisoner representing himself, asked for more time to respond to several defendants’ summary-judgment motions and asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
The court extended Smith’s deadlines to July 1, 2024, for opposing the motions filed by Drs. Singh and Kalinjian and Kathryn Bergen. It also accepted as timely Smith’s late opposition to Defendant Doherty’s motion and Doherty’s reply.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied Smith’s request for appointed counsel. The court said that feeling overwhelmed by this case and two others did not justify appointing a lawyer, and stated that the order resolved the two motions identified in the order.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Schuyler · No. 3:23-cv-03864
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 22, 2024
Background
Larry Smith, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion addresses two motions: Smith’s request for an extension of time to respond to summary-judgment motions and his request for appointment of counsel.
Briefing deadlines
The court granted Smith’s request for additional time to oppose the joint summary-judgment motion filed by Drs. Singh and Kalinjian. The opposition deadline was moved to July 1, 2024. The court also extended to July 1, 2024, Smith’s deadline to oppose Defendant Kathryn Bergen’s separate summary-judgment motion. The court ordered those defendants to file replies by July 15, 2024.
The court accepted as timely Smith’s late opposition to Defendant Doherty’s summary-judgment motion. It also accepted as timely Doherty’s reply brief.
Appointment of counsel
The court denied Smith’s motion for appointment of a lawyer. It explained that there is no general right to appointed counsel in a civil case and that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances. Smith said he was overwhelmed by the responsibility of litigating this case and two other cases filed in the Eastern District of California. The court concluded that this circumstance did not require appointment of counsel in the interests of justice and stated that Smith’s papers showed he was capable of presenting his case.
The court stated that, if referral to locate volunteer counsel became necessary later, it would issue a referral order on its own. It also instructed Smith not to request appointment of counsel in this court again.
Disposition and classification
The extension-of-time motion was granted. The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel. The order accepted the late opposition and reply as timely and stated that it disposed of docket numbers 42 and 43. This is a procedural order because it addressed scheduling and representation rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims or the summary-judgment motions on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.