James v. Oakland Police Department et al
Filing
39
ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/1/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DENNIS LAMAR JAMES, JR.,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 13-011 SI (pr)
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
v.
OAKLAND POLICE DEPT.; et al.,
12
Defendants.
/
13
14
In this pro se civil rights action, plaintiff has sued several Oakland police officers and the
15
City of Oakland for the use of excessive force during his arrest on February 19, 2012, and has
16
sued several doctors for deliberate indifference to his medical needs during his hospital visit after
17
his arrest.
18
Plaintiff has requested an extension of the deadline to file his opposition to the motion
19
for summary judgment filed by defendant Dr. Liu. Defendant opposes the requested extension.
20
Plaintiff also likely will need extended time to file a necessary amended complaint with regard
21
to the other health care defendants.
22
Plaintiff is currently at Napa State Hospital undergoing "psychiatric treatment" and "has
23
no set date of release." Docket # 37. He was transferred from Santa Rita County Jail to Napa
24
State Hospital pursuant to an order from the Alameda County Superior Court in or about late
25
October 2013.
26
hospitalization was scheduled for January 31, 2014, but was continued to August 1, 2014.
27
See Docket # 37. Plaintiff expects to be released in August, although that is not a certainty.
28
See id. Plaintiff states that he needs to do additional unspecified discovery to oppose the motion
See Docket # 26.
A state court hearing apparently pertaining to that
1
for summary judgment. Docket # 26. He also requests that an attorney be appointed for him.
2
Docket # 37.
3
Plaintiff has several obligations pending in this action. He needs to file an opposition to
4
Dr. Liu's motion for summary judgment. He also needs to file an amended complaint with
5
regard to the other health care defendants because the court has granted their motion to dismiss
6
for failure to state a claim. See Docket # 35. And, once the law enforcement defendants file a
7
dispositive motion, he will need to file an opposition to that.
The circumstances of plaintiff's placement at Napa State Hospital that necessitate a
9
continuance of the deadline for his opposition to the motion for summary judgment also support
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
temporarily halting the other activity in this action. This action can be paused while plaintiff is
11
temporarily at Napa State Hospital, as it would be preferable that the plaintiff's competence not
12
be in question during the course of these proceedings. The best course is to stay this action until
13
plaintiff's release from Napa State Hospital, so that he can pursue his claims after being
14
discharged from the hospital and after presumably being restored to competency. Mindful that
15
the precise length of plaintiff's stay at Napa State Hospital is not within his control and is not
16
certain, the court will hold a case management conference in five months if plaintiff remains at
17
Napa State Hospital. This will enable the court to consider other options if plaintiff is going to
18
be there on a long-term basis, so that the stay will not become a de facto dismissal. See
19
generally Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 2014). Also, plaintiff may by
20
that time have more information about the nature and expected length of his hospitalization.
21
Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district
22
court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an
23
indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,
24
1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
25
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved and the likelihood of
26
success on the merits. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed
27
together before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff's hospitalization
28
presents an unusual circumstance. However, plaintiff had no problem articulating his claims in
2
this action (including municipal liability), at a time when he presumably had the same mental
2
illness he now has. He also has filed several prior actions in which he has ably represented
3
himself. There also appears to be a low likelihood of success on the merits. As to the excessive
4
force claim, the complaint admits that plaintiff was "acting erratic and not responding to
5
commands" when police approached him. Docket # 38 at 3.1 As to the medical care claim,
6
plaintiff has been unable/unwilling to describe just what the medical care defendants did or
7
failed to do that he contends amounted to deliberate indifference. See Docket # 35 at 3-4 & n.2.
8
Plaintiff's temporary placement at Napa State Hospital does not overcome these facts that weigh
9
against appointing one of the very few attorneys willing to take on a pro bono prisoner civil
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
rights case. Exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are not present in
11
this action.
12
For the foregoing reasons:
13
(1)
This action is STAYED and the clerk shall administratively CLOSE the
14
action. Nothing further will occur in this action until the stay is lifted or until the case
15
management conference mentioned below occurs.
16
(2)
A case management conference will be held at 4:00 p.m. on December 11,
17
2014. No later than November 24, 2014, plaintiff must provide to the court and opposing
18
counsel a telephone number at which he may be reached for that case management conference.
19
Counsel for Dr. Liu shall initiate the case management conference call, and connect plaintiff and
20
counsel for the other defendants before connecting the conference call to the court.
21
(3)
Plaintiff must notify the court and opposing counsel for all defendants
22
within ten days of his release from Napa State Hospital, regardless of whether that release is to
23
county jail, state prison or elsewhere.
24
25
(4)
Defendant Liu's motion for summary judgment is DISMISSED without
prejudice to defendant filing the motion again after the stay is lifted. (Docket # 17.) The
26
27
1
28
When the complaint was first scanned at the courthouse, page 3 inadvertently was omitted from
the scanned document, so the document later was re-scanned with page 3. The complaint missing page
3 is at Docket # 1, and the complaint with page 3 is at Docket # 38.
3
1
dismissal of the motion says nothing about its merits and instead is done for scheduling
2
purposes. When the stay is lifted, the court will set deadlines for dispositive motions and for
3
plaintiff to file an amended complaint.
4
5
6
(5)
Plaintiff's request for counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 37.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2014
_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
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?