Calloway v. Kelley et al
Filing
52
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 51 Motion to Set Aside Discovery Orders as Premature signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/10/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
G. KELLEY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SET ASIDE DISCOVERY ORDERS AS
PREMATURE
[ECF No. 51]
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking to set aside the discovery order as
19
20
Case No.: 1:11-cv-01090-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
premature, filed March 7, 2014.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed May 16, 2013, against
21
22
Defendants M. Bostanjian, Melissa Fritz, G. Kelley, Peter Mazuk, V. Schomer, Syed, Marc Talisman,
23
C. Trinh, and Jeffrey Wang for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.
On February 20, 2014, Defendants G. Kelley and Jeffrey Wang filed an answer to the first
24
25
amended complaint. (ECF No. 34.)
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
On February 24, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 37.)
2
On February 25, 2014, Defendants M. Bostanjian and Syed filed an answer to the first
3
amended complaint. (ECF No. 39.) On February 26, 2014, the Court issued an order extending the
4
discovery and scheduling order of February 24, 2014, to these Defendants. (ECF No. 41.)
On February 27, 2014, Defendants Peter Mazuk and V. Schomer filed an answer to the first
5
6
amended complaint. (ECF No. 45.) On March 5, 2014, the Court issued an order extending the
7
discovery and scheduling order of February 24, 2014, to these Defendants. (ECF No. 49.)
8
I.
Motion to Set Aside Discovery Order
9
Plaintiff seeks to set aside the discovery order as premature because he is not capable of
10
prosecuting this action and he wishes to amend the complaint to add an Eighth Amendment claim of
11
deliberate indifference. Plaintiff contends it is premature to begin discovery in this case when all the
12
defendants have not yet made an appearance in this action. Plaintiff further contends he “will get
13
confused going back and forth with the same medical issues and claims arriving from the same
14
incidents.”
As Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s July 1, 2011, “[a]fter an answer is filed, the court will
15
16
issue an order opening discovery and setting the deadlines for completing discovery, amending the
17
pleadings, and filing pre-trial dispositive motions.” (ECF No. 3, at 4:21-23.) Because at least one of
18
defendants has filed an answer in this action, the discovery phase of the action was initiated. It is
19
immaterial that not all of the defendants have been served and filed an answer to the complaint, as the
20
Court will extend and/or re-set the applicable deadlines as certain defendants file an appearance in the
21
action.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim that he seeks to set aside the discovery phase of the action
22
23
because he intends to amend the complaint to proceed on a claim of deliberate indifference to his
24
serious medical need, any such claim was dismissed from the action, at Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No.
25
13.)
In the Court’s August 23, 2013, order, Plaintiff was advised that he failed to state a cognizable
26
27
claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against any of the named defendants, and
28
///
2
1
Plaintiff was given the option of proceeding on the retaliation claim only or filing a second amended
2
complaint. (ECF No. 13.)
On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the retaliation
3
4
claim only. (ECF No. 15.) Thereafter, Plaintiff completed and returned the service or process
5
documents, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve the defendants on December 13, 2013.
6
(ECF No. 31.) Accordingly, this action is proceeding on a claim of retaliation only, and there is no
7
basis to stay discovery pending a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
8
II.
9
Plaintiff contends it would be unfair and biased to proceed with this action without the benefit
10
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
of pro bono counsel to assist him with the litigation.
11
As Plaintiff was previously advised in the Court’s May 23, 2013, order denying his request for
12
appointment of counsel, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in
13
this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349,
14
1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28
15
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;
16
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court
17
must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims
18
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer at 970 (citation and quotation
19
marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be
20
viewed together. Palmer 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at
21
1331.
22
As with Plaintiff’s prior motion, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances
23
exist at this time. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
24
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court
25
is faced with similar cases almost daily. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel must be
26
denied.
27
///
28
///
3
1
Based on the foregoing,
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting to set aside the discovery order
3
as premature is DENIED.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 10, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?