Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HOOMAN PANAKH, an individual, Case No. 14-00166 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO V. COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S 4 RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ TATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY; DENYING 41 TORRE CTIONS wD 0 RENEWED MOTION TO APPOINT 14 COUNSEL; GRANTING REHABILITATION, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER 15 Defendants.

16 (Docket Nos. 135, 144, 147) (17 Z 18 Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) proceeding || pro se, filed a second amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging || unconstitutional acts by SQSP correctional officers. The Court found several of Plaintiffs || claims cognizable, and scheduled briefing on the matter. (Docket No. 69.) Defendants || filed a motion to compel Plaintiff's responses to written discovery which is unopposed.

23 || (Docket Nos. 135, 146.) Plaintiff has filed another renewed motion for appointment of || counsel. (Docket No. 144.) Lastly, Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to || respond to the court order directing him to provide addresses for unserved Defendants.

26 || (Docket No. 147.)

27 Defendants move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel || Plaintiff to respond to their first set of written discovery. (Docket No. 135.) Defense || counsel Allison M. Low certifies that she served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Plaintiff on June 27, 2019; she received no response from || Plaintiff. (7d. at 1; Low Decl. 4 2, Ex. A.) Ms. Low wrote Plaintiff on August 13, 2019, |! inquiring on the status of the discovery requests, and again received no response. (Id.; || Low Decl. § 3, Ex. B.) Plaintiff has filed no opposition to Defendants’ motion to © |! contradict counsel’s assertions regarding his failure to comply with their requests for |! discovery. Accordingly, having shown that they first attempted in good faith to confer || with Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 37, Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED.

9 |! Defendants are directed to re-serve Plaintiff with their requests for written discovery |} within seven (7) days from the filing of this order. Plaintiff shall provide his response |) within thirty days of the date of service of the demand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C), || 33(b)(2). Failure to comply with this order by providing a response to Defendants’ || written discovery may result in the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d).

14 Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 144.)

2 || Plaintiff has already been informed that appointment of counsel is granted only in A 16 || exceptional circumstances. (See Docket Nos. 46, 98, 118); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d = 17 |} 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff claims that he suffers from a vision impairment and that prison officials have failed to provide him with a new pair of glasses; he states that he || is managing with his old pair of glasses with its “outdated” prescription. Nevertheless, || Plaintiff continues to demonstrate to his ability to proceed pro se in this action by his |! numerous and extensive filings, including the motions addressed herein, despite the || challenges he alleges. (Id.) Accordingly, for the same reasons the previous motions were || denied, (Docket Nos. 46, 98, 118), this renewed motion is DENIED for lack of exceptional |! circumstances. See Agyeman vy. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand,113 F.3d at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); |! Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

27 Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Court’s order, |! (Docket No. 142), directing him to file information for unserved Defendants. (Docket No. || 147). Plaintiff states that the prison is on a complete lockdown that may last up to three || weeks. (Docket No. 147.) He requests an extra sixty days, up to November 17, 2019, to |! comply with the court order. (Id.) Good cause appearing, his request is GRANTED.

5 || Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than November 17, 2019. Failure to respond in || that time shall result in the dismissal of the unserved Defendants Lt. J ackson, AW || Moore, CDW Rodriguez and under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil || Procedure. (Docket No. 142.)

9 This order terminates Docket Nos. 135, 144, and 147.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 |} Dated: October 4, 2019 hom fly hemar) 2 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 1B

Z 18 Order Granting M. to Compel; Deny Appt. of Counsel; Grant EOT to File Response 25 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.14\00166Panah_deny.atty4.motions