Carroll v. State of California et al
Filing
46
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/8/2018 GRANTING 44 and 45 Requests for Relief From Judgment, DENYING 11 , 21 and 35 Request for Reconsideration. To the extent Plaintiff is separately requesting appointment counsel again (rather than reconsideration of the earlier denials), that request is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend court records to reflect the address for Plaintiff contained in his August 24, 2017 pleading. CASE REOPENED. (Hunt, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TREMAYNE DEON CARROLL,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-01759-TLN-KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 18, 2017, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff thirty days to file
19
an amended complaint. (ECF No. 39.) Thirty days passed and Plaintiff failed to file an amended
20
complaint or otherwise respond to the April 18, 2017 Order. Accordingly, on June 1, 2017, the
21
magistrate judge recommended that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff did not file
22
objections. On August 7, 2017, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations and
23
judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 42 & 43.)
24
On August 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a submission titled “petition for extension of time (45)
25
days and reconsideration for appointment of counsel.” (ECF No. 44.) In this submission,
26
Plaintiff states that he is in the CDCR Mental Health Delivery System. Plaintiff also alleges that
27
he is housed in administrative segregation for non-disciplinary reasons. Plaintiff alleges that he
28
has no access to his legal property or the law library.
1
1
The undersigned construes Plaintiff’s August 24, 2017 submission as (i) a request for
2
relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and (ii) a request for
3
reconsideration of one or more of the previous denials of Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of
4
counsel (ECF Nos. 11, 21 & 35). Plaintiff subsequently filed a submission titled “petition for
5
extension of time (60) days [and] request for appointment of counsel.” (ECF No. 45.) The
6
undersigned construes this second submission as requesting the same two things as his August 24,
7
2017 submission for essentially the same reasons.
8
9
10
11
With respect to the first request, the Court finds there is good cause to vacate the August
7, 2017 judgment. Plaintiff will be granted sixty days from the date of this Order to file an
amended complaint.
With respect to the second request, the magistrate judge has denied Plaintiff’s requests for
12
appointment of counsel in three separate Orders (ECF Nos. 11, 21 & 35). The magistrate judge
13
has accurately stated the law in those Orders, so the Court will not repeat it here. Having
14
carefully reviewed those Orders and Plaintiff’s two most recent submissions (ECF Nos. 44 & 45),
15
the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown any basis why reconsideration is warranted.
16
In the abundance of caution, given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the fact he did not include
17
the word “reconsideration” in the caption of his most recent submission (ECF No. 45), the
18
undersigned has conducted de novo review of Plaintiff’s prior requests for appointment of
19
counsel. The undersigned would have reached the same result as the magistrate judge in each
20
instance. Simply put, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of
21
demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time.
22
Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
23
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. Plaintiff’s requests for relief from judgment (ECF Nos. 44 & 45) are granted; the
25
August 7, 2017 judgment (ECF No. 43) is vacated; Plaintiff is granted sixty days from the date of
26
this Order to file an amended complaint;
27
28
2. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s orders (ECF Nos. 11,
21 & 35) is denied.
2
1
2
3
4
3. To the extent Plaintiff is separately requesting appointment counsel again (rather than
reconsideration of the earlier denials), that request is denied.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend court records to reflect the address for
Plaintiff contained in his August 24, 2017 pleading.
5
6
Dated: January 8, 2018
7
8
9
10
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?