Penunuri

Penunuri v. Davis

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 20203:19-cv-06112California674 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD PENUNURI, Case No. 19-cv-06112-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY

DEDLINE; ORDER DENYING

v. 13 MOTION FOR THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

14 O. SMITH, et al., ORDER DISMSSING TWO

DEFENDANTS; ORDER SETTING

Defendants. 15 BRIEFING SCHEDULE 16

Dkt. Nos. 15 and 19 17 This order addresses two pending motions, dismisses two unserved defendants, and 18 sets a dispositive motion deadline. 19 (i) Defendants’ motion to extend the discovery production deadline to June 21, 20 2020 is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 19.) 21 (ii) Plaintiff Penunuri’s moves for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 15.) The 22 decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is 23 within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 24 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of 25 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.