Samuel Latu v. B. Holmes, et al.

Summary

The court denied a pro se prisoner’s motion seeking appointment of counsel, discovery relief, and additional time to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It concluded that exceptional circumstances did not warrant requesting voluntary counsel, the discovery request was procedurally defective and untimely, and further extensions were unwarranted. The court stated that defendants’ summary-judgment motion would be addressed separately through findings and recommendations.

Holdings

1. A pro se prisoner's limited English proficiency, lack of legal education, and lack of legal assistance did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting a request for voluntary counsel where the plaintiff could articulate his claims and the case was not factually or legally complex.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to discovery relief because his filing was not a proper motion to compel and was untimely after the close of discovery; reopening discovery was likewise denied.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to another extension of time to oppose defendants' summary-judgment motion because he sought the extension after the deadline had expired and had already received multiple extensions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established exceptional circumstances warranting the court's request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
2. Whether plaintiff's filing was a proper and timely motion to compel discovery or otherwise justified reopening discovery.
3. Whether plaintiff was entitled to another extension of time to oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment after prior extensions had expired.

Disposition

other