Rouse v. Pitkin

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA XEZAKIA ROUSE, Case No. 21-cv-05493-AGT 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. PENDING MOTIONS AND CONTINUING INITIAL CASE 10 GARY PITKIN, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 8, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22

13 1. Pro se plaintiff Xezakia Rouse requests to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. Under 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a district court may authorize a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, or without prepayment of fees, if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he is unable to pay such fees. The Court has reviewed Rouse’s application and finds that he is unable to pay the filing fee in this action. His request to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore granted.

18 2. Rouse also requests that the Court appoint him counsel. Dkts. 19, 22. Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil proceedings. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

20 However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Id. (citations omitted). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).

25 At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that Rouse has not shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Accordingly, his requests for appointment of counsel are denied. The Court encourages Rouse to visit the Northern District of California’s Court, N.D. Cal., Representing Yourself, https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Rouse is also || encouraged to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal Help Center. He can make an appointment by emailing [email protected] or by calling (415) 782-8982.

4 3. Rouse’s request for an extension of time to respond to defendant Gary Pitkin’s pending motion to dismiss is granted. Dkt. 20. Rouse’s opposition is now due by January 3, 2022, and || Pitkin’s reply is due by January 17, 2022. The hearing on the motion is vacated and will be reset if necessary. Unless otherwise indicated, all hearings in this case will occur by Zoom.

8 4. Rouse’s request that the Court “compel Gary to work with [Rouse] to create the Joint Scheduling Order” is denied. Dkt. 8 at 3. Going forward, Rouse may not directly contact Gary || Pitkin, who is represented by counsel, about this litigation. All communications must be directed 11 to Pitkin’s counsel of record, David C. Jones of the Napa City Attorney’s Office.

12 5. Rouse’s request for issuance and service of a subpoena (dkt. 12), and his motion to deem 13 requests for admission admitted (dkt. 21) are denied without prejudice.

14 6. The initial case management conference is continued to February 11, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., 15 and will take place by Zoom. The parties may file separate case management statements, which 16 are due by February 4, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: October 5, 2021 AG “ISE United States Magistrate Judge