From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crane v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 13, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-0663 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0663 KJM CKD P

08-13-2013

RICHARD J. CRANE, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is now due on August 15, 2013. Plaintiff will be granted forty-five days thereafter in which to file a response.

In addition, plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Finally, plaintiff has requested a temporary restraining order, though it is not clear what specific relief he seeks. As plaintiff's motion does not concern the denial of outdoor exercise, which is the operative claim in this case, or set forth any basis for injunctive relief, his motion is frivolous and will be denied. (See ECF No. 56 at 4 (advising plaintiff that allegations unrelated to the claims at issue in this action will be disregarded)).

Local Rule 302 of the Eastern District of California authorizes magistrate judges to handle all aspects of a prisoner's case short of jury trial. This rule reflects the contours of magistrate judge authority established by Congress. Pursuant to Section 636, Title 28, United States Code, magistrate judges may determine any pretrial matter unless it is "dispositive" to the action, see United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980), or seeks injunctive relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted by the action, see De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 219-200. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(A). As plaintiff seeks injunctive relief unrelated to the claims at issue in this action, his motion is properly before the undersigned for disposition by order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 1, 2013 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 71) is granted;

2. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date defendants file their motion for summary judgment to file a response;

3. Plaintiff's August 1, 2013 request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 71) is denied; and

4. Plaintiff's August 1, 2013 motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 71) is denied.

_______________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2/md; cran0663.36.31


Summaries of

Crane v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 13, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-0663 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Crane v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD J. CRANE, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 13, 2013

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-0663 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013)