Isbell v. State of Oklahoma, Department of Human Services et al

Filing 53

ORDER RE MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS FILED BY PLAINTIFF [re 51 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply MOTION to Appoint Counsel MOTION for Leave to File filed by Sarah Isbell]. Reply due by 6/22/2018. Response due by 6/15/2018. Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2018 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/7/2018. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SARAH ISBELL,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. C 18-00269 WHA

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT SERVICES, ED LAKE, officially
and individually, DAVID HAMMONS,
officially and individually, JIM HUTCHINSON,
officially and individually, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, ALISHA
GRIFFIN, officially and individually,
MICHAEL WILKENING, officially and
individually, and LISA DUGAN, officially and
individually,

ORDER RE
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTIONS FILED
BY PLAINTIFF

Defendants.
/

21
22

Pro se plaintiff Sarah Isbell filed this action in January 2018. An April order adopted

23

Judge Illman’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

24

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 11 and defendants State of Oklahoma, Department

25

of Human Services, and Jim Hutchinson filed motions to dismiss on May 25. Defendant State

26

of California, California Department of Child Support Services, had filed a motion to request

27

screening of the amended complaint on May 16. On June 4, while the motions to dismiss were

28

still pending, plaintiff filed several motions, requests, and a notice (Dkt. Nos. 34, 41, 45, 46, 44,
and 51). This order addresses each in turn.

1

First, plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion to request

2

screening. Pursuant to a prior order, the screening of plaintiff’s complaint will be deferred until

3

after resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss. After filing her request for extension but

4

before the filing of this order, plaintiff submitted a response to the motion to request screening.

5

Plaintiff’s request for extension of time is accordingly DENIED AS MOOT.

6

Second, plaintiff seeks an appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

7

Appointment of counsel under § 1915(e) is not warranted absent exceptional circumstances.

8

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). There has not been a showing that such

9

exceptional circumstances exist in this case. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

accordingly DENIED.
Third, plaintiff moves to file a second amended complaint. Given that her proposed

12

amendments do not substantively alter her complaint, her motion to file a second amended

13

complaint will be held in abeyance until after resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss.

14

Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint is DENIED.

15

Fourth, plaintiff renews her motion to show cause. This motion will also be held in

16

abeyance until after resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to

17

show cause is also DENIED.

18

Fifth, plaintiff gives notice that she and defendants have agreed that defendants’ motions

19

to dismiss are moot. However, the Oklahoma defendants have not withdrawn their motions.

20

Accordingly, the hearing on JULY 5, 2018, AT 8 A.M. in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, 450 Golden

21

Gate Avenue will remain as scheduled. Plaintiff’s brief in response to these motions is due by

22

June 15. Defendants’ reply brief is due by June 22.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: June 7, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2