Pinson v. United States Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 2018-0486

Pro se plaintiff Jeremy (Grace) Pinson, an inmate, filed FOIA and Privacy Act claims (and some First/Eighth Amendment allegations) against DOJ components and the CIA and has litigated multiple related suits.
Pinson repeatedly sought court-appointed counsel (six prior requests); she renewed requests after a COVID-era lockdown and after transfer to USP Coleman II, citing limited law‑library access and unsafe conditions.
Pending motions addressed here: renewed motions to appoint counsel, a Rule 56(d)/expedited discovery request (seeking administrative‑remedy evidence, jurisdictional discovery regarding Defendant Anderl, and materials from a law firm in another case), and a motion to limit defendants’ ability to obtain deadline extensions.
The Court denied appointment of counsel, finding Pinson capable of litigating, having filed multiple motions and responses despite incarceration and limited library access, and not showing concrete unsuccessful efforts to obtain counsel.
The Court denied the Rule 56(d) request as premature (no summary‑judgment posture), found the administrative‑remedy discovery vague and burdensome, and declined jurisdictional/third‑party discovery because Pinson failed to show how it would produce new, necessary facts now.
The Court refused to bar future extension requests, explaining Rule 6(b) grants broad discretion and prior extensions were granted for good cause (COVID, service issues, coordination among agencies).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appointment of counsel	Pinson: incarcerated with limited law‑library/telecom access; cannot obtain counsel alone	Defendants: no statutory right to counsel; appointment is discretionary and unnecessary here	Denied — court found Pinson competent, no new justification, and Pro Bono resources not warranted
Limited discovery re: administrative remedies	Pinson: needs discovery to show exhaustion was unavailable (retaliation, intimidation)	Defendants: discovery premature and unnecessary; administrative filings in record	Denied — request vague, burdensome, premature before resolution of motion to dismiss
Jurisdictional discovery re: Anderl	Pinson: needs discovery to show Anderl’s contacts with D.C. to establish personal jurisdiction	Defendants: jurisdictional facts can be tested on current record; discovery would be burdensome	Denied — plaintiff failed to show how discovery would produce new facts now; premature to authorize jurisdictional discovery
Motion to limit extensions of time	Pinson: prohibit future extension requests absent "extraordinary circumstances"	Defendants: Rule 6(b) allows reasonable extensions for good cause; coordination and COVID justify some extensions	Denied — court exercises Rule 6 discretion; past extensions had good cause and blanket prohibition inappropriate

Willis v. FBI, 274 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (courts may request counsel for indigent civil litigants; appointment is discretionary)
Gaviria v. Reynolds, 476 F.3d 940 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no entitlement to appointed counsel in civil litigation)
Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional discovery permitted when plaintiff shows good‑faith belief it will establish jurisdiction)
Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.D.C. 2011) (jurisdictional discovery standard described as liberal)
Livnat v. Palestinian Auth., 851 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (courts resolve factual disputes in plaintiff’s favor for jurisdictional inquiries)
Seed Co. v. Westerman, 840 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2012) (Rule 56(d) requires an affidavit stating with particularity the need for discovery)
Sherrod v. Breitbart, 720 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Rule 6 grants district courts wide discretion to modify filing deadlines)