Rachel v Troutt

Rachel appealed the denial of his motion to extend time to respond to a summary judgment motion and the resulting judgment. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension because Rachel had to respond to the summary judgment motion before discovery was due from the defendants, he had significant health problems and could only access the law library a few hours a week and the summary judgment motion had over 40 case cites and other legal research was necessary. Addressing other issues raised by Rachel, the panel held there was no error in not acting on Rachel’s complaints about a screening investigative report as the case as allowed to proceed, there was no error in denying counsel as there is not authority to mandate representation or pay attorneys under the statute, there was no error in not appointed medical expert as this case was not exceptional, held there was no due process claim as Rachel didn’t argue any constitutional right that was violated  and ordered the district court to revisit Rachel’s request for an injunction and  claims against a prison nurse.