Sullivan v. Biter et.al.

Filing 73

ORDER DISCHARGING 71 Order to Show Cause; ORDER For Clerk to Send Plaintiff Copy of Service Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/18/16. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
M.D. BITER, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

Case No. 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG-PC
ORDER DISCHARING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF
COPY OF SERVICE DOCUMENTS
(ECF No. 71)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael J. Sullivan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2016, the Court issued

19

an order finding that service of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was appropriate and

20

instructed Plaintiff to complete and submit service documents within 30 days. (ECF No. 70.)

21

Plaintiff failed to submit the required service documents and the Court issued an order to show

22

cause why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action.

23

(ECF No. 71.)

24

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, explaining

25

that he still intended to pursue his action but that he had not read the Court’s order directing

26

him to fill out and submit service documents and now cannot find those documents in his

27

possession. He also renews his request for appointment of counsel, a request that was

28

previously denied on April 14, 2014. (ECF No. 43.)
1

1

As explained in its previous order, the Court does not find that this case presents the

2

required exceptional circumstances to justify appointment of counsel. Rand v. Rowland, 113

3

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Nor have the circumstances in this case changed substantially

4

since the Court previously declined to appoint counsel. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of

5

counsel is DENIED.

6

The Court notes that this case has been pending since June 28, 2012 and that much of

7

the delay appears to stem from Plaintiff’s actions. After his first amended complaint was

8

dismissed with leave to amend, for example, Plaintiff filed no fewer than six separate requests

9

for extension of time to prepare the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 32, 34, 38, 49, 53,

10

55.) After the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the action

11

proceed only against defendants Chen, Patel, and Marchiano, Plaintiff requested three separate

12

extensions of time to file objections. (ECF Nos. 61, 63, 64.) And even after those extensions,

13

Plaintiff required an additional extension of time because he failed to file objections that

14

conformed to the Court’s Local Rules. (ECF No. 67.) The case was further delayed after

15

Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of several of the Court’s orders, resulting in an order from

16

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirming the Court’s decision. (ECF No. 50.)

17

While the Court will provide Plaintiff another opportunity to submit the required service

18

documents, Plaintiff is advised that any further attempts to delay this action will be viewed with

19

great disfavor and may result in sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of his case.

20

Plaintiff is further warned that he must review all Court orders carefully; even if Plaintiff is pro

21

se, he is not excused from any deadlines or instructions merely because he did not read an

22

order.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

The Order to Show Cause, dated October 4, 2016 (ECF No. 71), is DISCHARGED.

2

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s Order, dated

3

August 16, 2016 (ECF No. 70), as well as any attachments listed therein. Plaintiff shall submit

4

the service documents required by the August 16, 2016 Order no later than November 18,

5

2016. Any further failures to comply with court orders may result in dismissal of this action.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 18, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3