United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; DISMISSING
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTIONS
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(DOCS. 14-20) 30 DAY DEADLINE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Valentin
Feliciano complains he received inadequate medical care. The
Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with 30 days
leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff's
request for an additional 30 days to file the amended
complaint. (Docs. 12, 13.) He did not do so. On June 3, 2016,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Court's order and to prosecute this action. (Doc. 14.)
On June
20, 2016, Plaintiff filed multiple documents: motions for
extensions of time (Docs. 16, 19, 20), first amended
complaints (Docs. 15, 17), an explanation that
Plaintiff's delay in responding to this Court's
orders occurred because an inmate who was assisting Plaintiff
mistakenly sent the amended complaint to the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California (Doc.
18); and motions to appoint counsel (Docs. 16, 19, 20).
Plaintiff's
explanation that his first amended complaint was mistakenly
sent to the wrong court (Doc. 18), [1] coupled with filing of first
amended complaints (Docs. 15, 17) suffice to discharge the
order to show cause. However, the content and factual
allegations of the first amended complaints are entirely in
Spanish. All documents submitted for filing must be written
in English. Documents submitted in a language other than
English cannot be translated. Thus, the first amended
complaints (Docs. 15, 17) are dismissed with leave to amend.
Plaintiff's
requests for extensions of time (Docs. 16, 19, 20) generally
ask for an extension of time to reply to any instructions
from the Court. The reason for the requested extensions of
time simply is unknown. The most recent deadline in this
action was for Plaintiff to respond to the order to show
cause, which was satisfied when he filed the first amended
complaints and explanation for his delay. There are no
pending deadlines to be extended at this time.
Plaintiff's
motions seeking appointment of counsel are denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot
require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,
298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the
Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at
1525.
Without
a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious
and exceptional cases. In determining whether
"exceptional circumstances exist, the district court
must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits
[and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
issues involved." Id. (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
In the
present case, the Court does not find the required
exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that
Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to
relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in
the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination
whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits and,
based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does
not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his
claims. Id.
Thus,
the Court ORDERS:
1. The First Amended Complaints, (Docs. 15, 17) are
DISMISSED with leave to amend;
2. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights
complaint form and a copy of the order screening his original
complaint that issued on March 3, 2016 (Doc. 11);
3. Within 30 days from the date of
service of this order, Plaintiff must file
ONE second amended complaint,
written in English, curing the deficiencies identified by the
Court in the March 3, 2016 screening order,
or file a notice of voluntary
dismissal;
4. The order to show cause, that issued on June 3, 2016 (Doc.
14), is DISCHARGED;
5. Plaintiff's motions for extension of time, filed on
June 20, 2016 and June 21, 2016 (Docs. 16, ...