1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 WILLIAM GUY, 8 Case No. 23-cv-03202 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 10 v. GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME 11 TO FILE OPPOSITION; GRANTING FINAL EXTENSION DR. SUII, et al., 12 OF TIME Defendants. 13 (Docket No. 33) 14

15 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a civil rights complaint under

16 against Dr. Suii, his primary care provider at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), S. 17 Sawyer (Chief Support Executive at SVSP), and S. Gates (Chief of Health Care 18 Correspondence and Appeals Branch of the California Correctional Health Care Service). 19 Dkt. No. 1. The Court found the complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered service 20 on Defendants on October 31, 2023. Dkt. No. 8. 21 On April 2, 2025, Defendants filed a second motion for terminating sanctions after 22 Plaintiff again failed to appear for his properly noticed deposition. Dkt. No. 29. The Court 23 granted Defendants’ motion to modify the dispositive motion deadline pending the 24 resolution of that motion. Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff was granted a second extension of time 25 until June 4, 2025, to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion. Dkt. No. 33. 26 Plaintiff has filed a motion to extend the deadline another 90 days in which to 27 obtain counsel, affidavits, and other evidence in this matter. Dkt. No. 33. He also repeats 1 || his request for the Court appoint pro bono counsel to represent him because of his pro se 2 || status and lack of legal knowledge. /d. at 1. 3 The Court denied a prior request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional 4 || circumstances. Dkt. No. 24. He has set forth no new grounds to warrant appointment of 5 || counsel in the instant motion. /d. at 2 (finding indigency and lack of legal expertise are not 6 || exceptional among prisoner-plaintiffs). Accordingly, this request is DENIED for lack of 7 || exceptional circumstances. See Agyveman vy. Corrections Corp. of America,

, 8 || 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. 9 || Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon,

, 1331 10 || (9th Cir. 1986). 11 The motion for an extension of time shall be granted in part. As the Court 2 previously stated, Defendants’ motion is primarily based on Plaintiff's failure to twice E 13. || appear at his properly noticed depositions with no communication with Defendants’ S 14 || counsel. Dkt. No. 32 at 2. Plaintiff need only respond with a showing of good cause for 3 15 || his failure to do so. Ninety days is excessive to prepare such an opposition. Nevertheless, 16 || the Court will extend the deadline another fifty-six days so that Plaintiff's opposition shall 5 17 || be filed no later than July 16, 2025. This being the third extension, no further 5 18 extensions of time shall be granted. 19 Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiffs 20 || opposition is filed. 71 This order terminates Docket No. 33. 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 Dated: — June 5, 2025 his / Wh ( BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 || pROSEBLECR2308202G\y eotopp 27