(PC) Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al, No. 2:2017cv01326 - Document 67 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/26/2018 DENYING plaintiff's 66 request for appointment of counsel and GRANTING her 65 request for an extension of time. Any objections to the 10/19/2018, findings and recommendations shall be filed no later than 120 days from the date of this order. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al Doc. 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under Bivens v. Six 18 Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She requests appointment of counsel as well as a 19 120-day extension of time to file objections to the court’s October 19, 2018 findings and 20 recommendations. See ECF Nos. 64, 65, 66. 21 District courts may authorize the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent civil 22 litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 23 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); 24 Richards v. Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1988). In considering whether exceptional 25 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; 26 and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 27 legal issues involved. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s 28 likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate Dockets.Justia.com 1 her claims amount to exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this 2 time. The court will however, grant plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of 4 counsel (ECF No. 66) is denied and her request for a 120-day extension of time to file objections 5 to the October 19, 2018 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 65) is granted. Any objections 6 to the findings and recommendations shall be filed no later than 120 days from the date of this 7 order. 8 DATED: November 26, 2018. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
