Shotwell v. Chavez-Epperson et al

Filing 66

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS by Judge William Alsup denying 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 43 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND MEMO RANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; terminating 53 Motion to Compel; finding as moot 57 Stipulation; denying 60 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 62 Motion to Amend/Correct. Responses due by 5/30/2017. Replies due by 6/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
MANUEL EUGENE SHOTWELL,

No. C 15-2894 WHA (PR)

10
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
11
12
13

CHAVEZ-EPPERSON; AVILA;
BEYER; BOLES; MEDINA;
VARGAS,

(Dkt. 48, 49, 53, 57, 60, 62)

14
Defendants.
15

/

16
Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is GRANTED to and
17
including May 29, 2017, in which to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
18
Defendants shall file a reply brief within 14 days of the date this order is filed. No further
19
extensions of time will be allowed.
20
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to counsel in
21
a civil case, plaintiff is able to present his claims on his own, he has been granted generous time
22
extensions to oppose defendants’ motion, and there are no circumstances of this case that
23
require plaintiff to have counsel. Should such circumstances arise, counsel will be appointed to
24
represent plaintiff without plaintiff needing to request such appointment again.
25
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the amount of money requested for damages in his
26
complaint. This motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend his request for
27
damages based upon any claims remaining after the motion to dismiss is resolved by filing a
28

1
2

motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of Service. In the

3

Northern District of California, Local Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for

4

reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory orders made in a case prior to the entry of

5

final judgment. Civil L.R. 7-9(a). No pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Local

6

Rule 7-9 may be brought without leave of court. Id. The moving party must specifically show:

7

(1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that

8

which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the

9

reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3)

12

a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court

13

before such interlocutory order. Id. 7-9(b). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, no response

14

need be filed to a motion under the Local Rule. Id. 7-9(c).

15

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration violates Local Rule 7-9(a) because he has not

16

sought or obtained leave of court to file such a motion. Nor does there appear from the motion

17

to be grounds for granting him such leave. He argues his conspiracy claim was wrongly

18

dismissed for failure to state a claim. His motion neither alleges material facts undiscoverable

19

with due diligence nor sets forth legal authority undermining the finding that his conspiracy

20

allegations are conclusory and insufficient. Plaintiff may raise any other challenges to the

21

Order of Service in his opposition to the motion to dismiss, and defendants may respond to such

22

challenges in their reply brief. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

23
24
25
26

The clerk shall TERMINATE the motion to compel in light of plaintiff’s stipulation to
withdrawing the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May

2

, 2017.

27
28

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2