Trevino v. Jimenez

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies Robert Trevino’s motion to appoint counsel in his First Amendment access-to-courts action. The magistrate judge recommends denying Trevino’s motion to stay, construed as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and recommends that he file an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment within fourteen days of any order adopting the recommendations. The findings and recommendations were issued on April 16, 2025.

Holdings

1. Appointment of counsel was unwarranted because plaintiff did not show exceptional circumstances; he appeared capable of representing himself and his allegations were not unusually complex.
2. Plaintiff's motion to stay, construed as a motion for reconsideration, should be denied because he failed to establish any Rule 60(b) ground and merely repeated arguments previously rejected.
3. Because substitution was recommended for denial, plaintiff's request for additional discovery upon substitution should also be rejected, and plaintiff should be directed to respond to the pending summary-judgment motion within fourteen days after any order adopting the recommendations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in his prisoner civil-rights action.
2. Whether plaintiff's motion to stay, construed as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), established any ground for relief from the prior denial of substitution.
3. Whether plaintiff should receive additional discovery or an extension to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

other