Meraz-Espinoza
Meraz-Espinoza v. Santoyo
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MOISES MERAZ-ESPINOZA, Case No. 23-cv-05947-WHO (PR)
Plaintiff,
ORDER EXTENDING TIME;
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
H. SANTOYO, THE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Defendant. 11 Dkt. Nos. 28 and
13 Defendant’s motion to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline is GRANTED. 14 (Dkt. No. 31.) Defendant shall file his dispositive motion on or before July 7, 2025. 15 Plaintiff Meraz-Espinoza’s opposition shall be filed within 45 days after defendant’s 16 motion is filed. Defendant’s reply shall be filed within 15 days after the opposition is 17 filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted on the day the reply brief is due. 18 Meraz-Espinoza has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel in which he 19 contends that his prison law library access is insufficient, the issues in his suit are complex, 20 and he would be better served with the assistance of counsel. (Dkt. No. 28 at 2-4.) The 21 decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is 22 within “the sound discretion of the…