ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action on his Second Amended Complaint (SAC), ECF No. 30, against defendant Kuppinger for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs and excessive force; and against defendant Moore for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs and failure to protect plaintiff from excessive force.
Presently pending are the following matters: (1) plaintiff's initial motion to compel discovery, filed June 15, 2015, ECF No. 54; (2) plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, filed June 29, 2015, ECF No. 55; (3) plaintiff's motion to obtain the case record, filed June 29, 2015, ECF No. 56; (4) plaintiff's further motion to compel discovery, filed July 13, 2015, ECF No. 58; and (5) plaintiff's request that a settlement conference be scheduled in this action, ECF No. 61. Defendants filed oppositions to plaintiff's discovery motions.
Plaintiff initially seeks further responses from defendant Kuppinger to plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers Four through Six, and plaintiff's corresponding Requests for Production, Set One, Numbers Four through Six.
Defendant Kuppinger's initial responses, served May 15, 2015, asserted multiple objections and disclosed no responsive information or documents.
Plaintiff did not file a reply to defendant's response to this motion, which the court construes as plaintiff's concession that that defendant Kuppinger's supplemental responses are adequate. Therefore, the court denies plaintiff's initial discovery motion, ECF No. 54, as moot.
Plaintiff's second discovery motion seeks responses to his Interrogatories, Set Two, served, respectively, on defendants Kuppinger and Moore. ECF No. 58. Defendants refused to provide responses to these interrogatories on the ground that they were untimely served.
Notwithstanding the untimeliness of plaintiff's requests, it appears that plaintiff made a good faith effort to comply with the court's scheduling order. In addition, this court is required to accord appropriate deference to pro se litigants and to strive to resolve cases on their merits. Therefore, the court broadly construes plaintiff's motion as a request to extend the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of obtaining responses to plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set Two, served on defendants Kuppinger and Moore.
For good cause shown, the court grants plaintiff's motion; extends the discovery deadline to November 20, 2015, for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to serve their responses to this discovery; and extends the dispositive motion deadline to March 20, 2016.
Also in his second discovery motion, plaintiff seeks sanctions against defendants on the ground that they untimely noticed plaintiff's deposition, which took place on July 15, 2015, two days before expiration of the discovery deadline.
Defendants have submitted a copy of their Notice of Plaintiff's Deposition, timely served on plaintiff on June 15, 2015, one month before.
Therefore, plaintiff's motion for sanctions premised on defendants' alleged failure to comply with the court's scheduling order is without merit and denied on that basis.
Plaintiff seeks the court's assistance in locating and retrieving (or providing duplicate copies of) his legal materials in this case. ECF No. 56. (Plaintiff makes this request in tandem with his request for appointment of counsel, addressed below.) Plaintiff states that he has had the assistance of other inmates in pursuing this action, who lost the materials.
Therefore, the instant request is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff has filed a second request for appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff is again informed that district courts do not have authority to require attorneys to represent indigent prisoners in Section 1983 cases.
In the present case, the court again finds that plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating the requisite exceptional circumstances. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as a deficient general education, lack of knowledge of the law, mental illness and disability, do not in themselves establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of voluntary civil counsel. Moreover, the legal issues in this case are well established, and clearly set forth by the court's order filed February 5, 2015.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
Finally, plaintiff requests, for the second time, that a settlement conference be scheduled in this action. ECF No. 61; see also ECF No. 58 at 2. In response to plaintiff's first request, ECF No. 45, defendants responded as follows, ECF No. 47 at 2:
In his present motion, plaintiff proposes a settlement that includes a monetary award of $15,000.00, removal of a related disciplinary finding from his central file and restoration of associated points. ECF No. 61.
Defendants will again be directed to file and serve a statement indicating whether they believe a settlement conference would be helpful at this time.
1. Plaintiff's initial motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 54 (seeking further responses from defendant Kuppinger to plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers Four through Six, and plaintiff's corresponding Requests for Production, Set One, Numbers Four through Six), is denied as moot.
2. Plaintiff's further motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 58, is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
a. Defendants Kuppinger and Moore shall serve their responses to plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set Two, within 45 days after the filing date of this order.
b. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, premised on defendants' alleged failure to comply with the court's scheduling order in noticing plaintiff's deposition, is denied.
3. Plaintiff's request for the court's assistance to obtain his legal materials in this case, ECF No. 56, is denied without prejudice. If plaintiff is still without his legal materials, he may file a new request.
4. Plaintiff's second request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 55 (see also ECF No. 56), is denied without prejudice.
5. Within thirty days after the filing date of this order, defendants shall file and serve a statement indicating whether they believe a settlement conference in this action would be helpful at this time. If so, defendants shall indicate whether they consent to the undersigned Magistrate Judge presiding at the conference, or request the random assignment of another Magistrate Judge.
6. The discovery deadline is extended to November 20, 2015, for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to serve the responses required by this order; the dispositive motion deadline is extended to March 20, 2016.