(PC) Khouanmany v. Alencastre

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, Case No. 2:17-cv-01326-TLN-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 12 v. MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY, AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al., RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 14 Defendants.

ECF Nos. 151-154 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel with this action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel, two discovery related motions, and a motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF Nos. 151-154.

22 With respect to her motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff again fails to demonstrate that appointing counsel is warranted. Plaintiff has been notified on several occasions that she does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 25 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 27 296, 298 (1989). See ECF Nos. 31, 42, 49, 60, 64, 67, 79, 104, 124, 146. The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an | attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, | without a means to compensate counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional | circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate | both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his | claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 | Gnternal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff once again fails to demonstrate that | these factors weigh in favor of appointing her counsel. Accordingly, her motion for appointment || of counsel is denied.

9 Plaintiff has also filed two discovery-related motions. In the first, plaintiff asks that she || be provided certain documents and information. ECF No. 153. In the second, she asks that | defendant Deppe be ordered to provide responses to twenty-five interrogatories. ECF No. 154.

12 || Discovery requests shall be filed with the court only if they are at issue. See E.D. Cal. L.R. |} 250.2-250.4. Currently, there is no court proceeding that requires review of plaintiffs discovery | requests. To the extent that plaintiff intended to serve defendants with her discovery requests by | filing them with the court, that approach is improper. Plaintiff must instead serve her discovery || requests on each defendant from whom she seeks discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36.

17 | Accordingly, plaintiff's motions for discovery, ECF No. 153-54, are denied.

18 Lastly, plaintiff has filed a motion to extend “any and all deadlines,” which I construe as a | motion to modify the June 22, 2020 supplemental discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 151; | see ECF No. 138. Defendants will be afforded an opportunity to respond to this motion prior to | any decision from the court. Accordingly, within fourteen days of the date this order is filed, | defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion to modify | the June 22, 2020 supplemental discovery and scheduling order.

95 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 | q Sty — Dated: _ November 17, 2020 QH——— 27 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE