Khouanmany v. United States Marshals et al
Filing
124
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/29/2020 GRANTING plaintiff's 107 motion to amend the complaint, to the extent that, within 30 days, plaintiff must submit an amended complaint that is compete in itself in accordance w ith this order; DENYING as duplicative and thus moot plaintiff's subsequently-filed 114 , 120 motions to amend; DENYING plaintiff's 108 , 112 , 114 motions to compel; DENYING without prejudice plaintiff's 114 , 119 motions for the appointment of counsel ; and DISREGARDING plaintiff's 122 responses to discovery. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an action arising under Bivens v. Six
18
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She currently proceeds with an Eighth
19
Amendment claim for alleged sexual assault against defendant Alencastre. See ECF Nos. 73, 77,
20
& 92. On September 3, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to amend which sought primarily to
21
reinstitute claims that the court had already screened out. ECF No. 101. The court recommended
22
that motion be denied based on: (1) the length of time this case has already been pending; (2)
23
plaintiff’s lengthy and troubled history of filing numerous motions to amend; and (3) the
24
scattershot nature of plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 106. Those
25
recommendations were adopted in full by the district judge. ECF No. 113.
26
After the foregoing recommendations were filed, plaintiff submitted numerous additional
27
motions – three more motions to amend (ECF Nos. 107, 114, 120), three motions to compel (ECF
28
Nos. 108, 112, 114), two motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 114, 119), and what appears to be
1
1
responses to defendant Alencastre’s discovery requests (ECF No. 122). As discussed below,
2
plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint as provided herein, and all other motions
3
are denied.
4
5
Motion to Amend
In the October 21, 2019 motion to amend, plaintiff states, inter alia, that she named the
6
wrong individual as the alleged perpetrator of her sexual assault. ECF No. 107 at 2. She requests
7
that defendant Alencastre be replaced with Kevin Deppe. Id. The motion to amend, however, is
8
not a complaint that is complete in itself. Indeed, plaintiff refers to it as both a motion to amend
9
and a “motion to supplement defendant(s).” ECF No. 107 at 1. The local rules require that every
10
amended pleading be complete in itself. See Local Rule 220. Thus, in granting her motion to
11
amend, plaintiff is directed to file her amended complaint which substitutes Kevin Deppe within
12
thirty days from the date of service of this order. Once the new complaint is submitted, the court
13
will screen it and, if appropriate, recommend that defendant Alencastre be dismissed from this
14
suit.1 Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed motions to amend, ECF Nos. 114 and 120, are denied as
15
duplicative and thus, moot. Plaintiff is cautioned that the filing of duplicative motions serves
16
only to slow the progress of this case. In the future, plaintiff shall await a response from the court
17
before filing redundant requests.
18
As defendants requested in response to the motion to amend, the court re-affirms that the
19
only active claim is an Eighth Amendment claim for sexual assaults alleged to have occurred on
20
February 26, 2016, March 1, 2016, and March 11, 2016. ECF No. 110 at 2. Thus, plaintiff is
21
cautioned that leave to amend is granted only as to that claim to permit plaintiff to substitute
22
Kevin Deppe as a defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
However, plaintiff states in one of her motions that she intends to include Alencastre as a
co-defendant in an amended complaint because “he was there” and thus, has information that she
would like to seek through discovery. ECF No. 114 at 4. That is not a basis for including
Alencastre as a defendant. While plaintiff may seek discovery from witnesses with relevant
information, simply being “there” is not adequate grounds for a claim. Plaintiff is admonished
that unless she alleges actions by Alencastre that violated her federally-protected rights,
Alencastre should not be included as a defendant in any amended complaint. If plaintiff files an
amended complaint that states a viable claim as to Deppe, plaintiff will have the opportunity to
engage in discovery.
2
1
Motions to Compel
2
Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos 108, 112, 114) are denied. The interrogatories at
3
issue were directed at defendant Alencastre whom, as noted supra, plaintiff now indicates she
4
misidentified as the perpetrator of her sexual assault. Thus, it appears that adjudicating these
5
motions to compel would be a waste of judicial economy. Further, as defendant points out, the
6
other requests for discovery assistance contained in the motions are untimely and should have
7
been submitted by September 27, 2019. See ECF No. 96.
8
Motions to Appoint Counsel
9
Plaintiff has also filed redundant requests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 114,
10
119). As has previously been explained (see ECF Nos 31, 42, 49, 60, 64, 67, 79), district courts
11
lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v.
12
United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may
13
request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell
14
v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900F.2d 1332, 1335-36
15
(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must
16
consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
17
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560
18
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors once again, the court still finds
19
there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.
20
Discovery Responses
21
Plaintiff has filed her responses to defendant’s discovery with the court. ECF No. 122.
22
As plaintiff is aware (see ECF No. 99), discovery requests/responses shall only be filed with the
23
court if they are at issue. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. At this time, there is no
24
proceeding before the court that requires the court’s review of plaintiff’s discovery responses.
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
3
1
Conclusion
2
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
3
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED to the extent that, within
4
thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must submit an amended
5
complaint that is complete in itself and substitutes Kevin Deppe as a defendant to
6
this action;
7
2.
8
Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed motions to amend (ECF Nos. 114 and 120) are
DENIED as duplicative and thus, moot;
9
3.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 108, 112, 114) are DENIED;
10
4.
Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 114, 119) are
11
12
13
DENIED, without prejudice; and
5.
Plaintiff’s responses to discovery (ECF No. 122) are disregarded.
DATED: January 29, 2020.
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?