Flores v. Mnuchin

Filing 8

ORDER DISCHARGING the Court's 11/15/2017 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. It is further ORDERED that: 1) The deadline for Plaintiff to effectuate service of process upon the Defendant shall be extended to 3/1/2018; and 2) The Initial Scheduling Conference will be held on 3/14/2018 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/6/2017. (Rooney, M)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MARIE FLORES,

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,

1:17-cv-00834-AWI-EPG
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

vs.
STEVEN MNUCHIN,
Defendant.

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
(ECF No. 6)

9

A. Order to Show Cause
10

Marie Flores (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for race

11

discrimination and retaliation.
12

On November 15, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why she should not
13

be sanctioned up to and including dismissal for failing to appear at the November 14, 2017
14

Initial Scheduling Conference. (ECF No. 6.) In the same order, Plaintiff was ordered to show
15

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service in accordance with
16

the 90-day time limit in Rule 4(m). (Id.)
17

B. November 15, 2017 Order to Show Cause
18

On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff responded to the show cause order and indicated that
19

she was attempting so secure the services of an attorney to assist with her case. (ECF No. 7.)
20

Plaintiff has requested the Court’s assistance in finding an attorney and requested additional

21

time to cure the issues identified by the order to show cause. (Id.)
22

C. Order
23

The Court notes that a substantial record of noncompliance with Court directives has
24

already developed in this case. Plaintiff should be aware that her pro se status does not excuse
25

any failures to comply with the rules or directives of this Court. Plaintiff should be aware that
26

any further compliance failures will likely result in dismissal of this case.
27
28
1

1

With respect to the request for assistance in finding an attorney, the Court sits as a

2

neutral arbitrator of the case and cannot provide legal assistance to the parties.1 However, the

3

Court does find good cause to extend the deadlines in this case in order to afford more time for

4

Plaintiff to secure the services of an attorney.

5

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

6

1. The November 15, 2017 Order to Show Cause is hereby discharged;

7

2. The deadline for Plaintiff to effectuate service of process upon the Defendant shall

8
9

be extended to March 1, 2018; and
3. The Initial Scheduling Conference will be held on March 14, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in

10

Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 6, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent that the request can be construed a motion for appointment of counsel, the request is
denied. In exceptional circumstances, the Court may appoint counsel under the in forma pauperis statute. See
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (providing that the court may appoint counsel under 28
U.S.C. 1915 where “exceptional circumstances” are found to exist, after an evaluation of “both ‘the likelihood of
success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
legal issues involved.’” [citations]). The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court “may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Here, Plaintiff is not proceeding in
forma pauperis. Thus, the Court has no indication that Plaintiff is unable to afford counsel, not to mention that
there are such exceptional circumstances here.
2