Myers v. UCSF Medical Center et al

Filing 5

ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why case should not be dismissed. Response or amended complaint due February 23, 2023. (jcslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/1 9/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)Copy placed in O:Drive for mailing on 1/19/2023 Modified on 1/19/2023 (klh, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ROBERT MYERS, 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 UCSF MEDICAL CENTER, et al., 10 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 22-cv-07813-JCS ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 12 13 I. Plaintiff Robert Myers, pro se, applies to proceed in forma pauperis. See dkt. 2. Sufficient 14 15 INTRODUCTION cause having been shown, that application is GRANTED. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Myers’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. 16 17 § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons discussed below, Myers is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why 18 this case should not be dismissed. Myers shall file either an amended complaint or a response to 19 this order no later than February 23, 2023. If he does not do so, or fails to cure the deficiencies 20 identified herein, the case will be reassigned to a United States district judge with a 21 recommendation for dismissal. 22 II. 23 ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT Myers includes a number of defendants in his complaint: UCSF Medical Center, San 24 Francisco General Hospital, the San Francisco Police Department, the San Francisco Homeless 25 Outreach Team and Homeless Services Agency, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, the San 26 Francisco Department of Public Health and its director “Dr. Colfax,” Episcopal Community 27 Services, University of the Pacific School of Dentistry, a Matt Booth and “Dr. Gallagher,” the San 28 Francisco District Attorney’s Office, and the San Francisco Housing Authority. The complaint United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 11 1 does not include any numbered paragraphs. Numerous run-on sentences and some incoherent 2 phrasing also make Myers’s complaint difficult to follow at times, but this section summarizes the 3 gist of the allegations. Nothing in this order should be construed as resolving any issue of fact that 4 might be disputed. 5 A. 6 Myers first directs his allegations at the UCSF Medical Center for an incident that occurred Allegations Against UCSF Medical Center and Stanford Health Clinic 7 on February 25, 2020. Compl. (dkt. 1) at 1. Myers alleges that he visited the UCSF emergency 8 room with breathing problems and that the hospital staff gave him “something” to help him 9 breathe that ultimately caused Myers to start choking and vomiting instead. Id. Then, Myers 10 contends, the hospital staff intubated him against his will, causing “lasting damages to both of 11 [his] lungs.” Id. Myers also alleges that the hospital staff member who gave him the medication 12 violated state and federal law by not documenting which medications Myers received that elicited 13 such a violent reaction. Id. Myers asserts that he lost his part-time job and extra money as a result 14 of the hospital staff’s actions that allegedly violated, generally, FDA regulations and state medical 15 laws. Id. He seeks $20 million in damages from the UCSF Medical Center in addition to 16 “lifetime emotional and physical care” to remedy emotional and physical damage caused by this 17 episode. Id. 18 Myers again visited the UCSF emergency room on November 26, 2020, for breathing 19 trouble. Id. at 2. He asserts that he reiterated to the hospital employees that he did not want a 20 breathing tube. Id. In response to his request, Myers alleges that the medical personnel: 21 25 tried to take away my rights by abusing the medical hold law and due it away and the attending doctor told me she did not care if I sued her and she tried to get me meds that I was allergic to and she did that any after I tried to leave I was thrown to the ground and I was defending myself and was assured by UCSF security and three nurse with the meds that made me sick and suffered my left big toe nail being ripped off and a big bump on the left side of my head and black eyes and my windpipe was damaged which now prevents me from recording my music. 26 Id. As a result, Myers asks for an injunction “to stop ucsf [sic] from abusing the medical hold law 27 and treating homeless people with disrespect and treating them including me with less humanity.” 28 Id. 22 23 24 2 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 11 Myers also alleges malpractice at the “Sutter Health Mission Bernal Campus . . . AKA 1 2 Stanford Health Clinic.” Id. He claims that he was “wrongfully diagnosed with a viral infection 3 when [in] fact [he] had a blood infection,” which turned into a lung infection, which could have 4 been prevented had the medical staff followed medical standards. Id. Myers asserts that he has 5 lost over forty pounds, had lung failure, and still has infections, and would like to be compensated 6 by the Stanford Health Clinic in the amount of $5 million. Id. 7 B. 8 Next, Myers turns to the San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”). Id. He alleges United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Allegations Against the San Francisco Police Department violations of his “constitutional and civil rights” when, more than twenty years ago in 2002, the 10 SFPD wrongly seized Myers’s car and accused him of having fake license plates. Id. Even 11 though the police “apologized and cut up the ticket,” they still submitted the report and Myers 12 asserts that he has a “point on [his] record” from his car being intentionally sabotaged and towed 13 more than once. Id. Myers claims that the alleged police misconduct has cost him “a lot of money 14 in car [insurance]” as the DMV retains “inaccurate information” on his driving record. Id. at 6. 15 Myers also claims that the police have targeted him on multiple occasions because he lives in his 16 car, and that they took his car and lost all of his possessions that he kept in the car. Id. He 17 requests that the DMV remove the inaccurate information and that the police pay for the alleged 18 violations of his civil and human rights. Id. 19 C. 20 Myers alleges that Dr. Colfax1 and the San Francisco Department of Public Health 21 (“SFDPH”) have been committing perjury by “lying to the public [and the San Francisco Board of 22 Supervisors] and telling them they’re helping people that are senior and disabled as well as have 23 lung problems,” when, instead, taxpayer money has in fact been going to “drugs and alcohol,” 24 which Myers labels a violation of “Federal and State as well as local law.” Id. at 2–3. Myers 25 reports that he has tried to reach out to the SFDPH and has emailed Mayor London Breed Allegations Against the San Francisco Department of Public Health 26 27 28 1 Myers does not include a first name in his complaint, but the Court assumes he refers to Dr. Grant Colfax, the San Francisco Director of Health. 3 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 11 1 “personally,” but the SFDPH “refused to help muscles doing the hot 2 team for discrimination 2 because they only help people that have drug and alcohol problems,” not mental and physical 3 problems, and Mayor Breed has refused to step in. Id. at 3. 4 D. 5 Myers alleges that Episcopal Community Services (“ECS”) promised to repair Myers’s 6 minivan, but instead only gave him gas cards and food vouchers, and that he is selling his car at a 7 loss.3 Id. Myers requests $4 million from ECS in “punitive and compensatory damages for the 8 loss of property and emotional stress.” Id. 9 E. Allegations Against an Unidentified Hospital Myers’s complaint recounts an incident that occurred in the ICU of an unidentified 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Allegations Against Episcopal Community Services 11 hospital. Id. at 3. He alleges that he spent some time in this ICU where “EMS 6” did not solve 12 any of Myers’s problems, and he had to use his own money for medication and to get a room for a 13 weekend even though “they,” another group or individual, promised to pay. Id. Consequently, 14 Myers now asks for an injunction that orders the City and County of San Francisco to “do its 15 legally required [sic]”; the complaint does not specify what is legally required. Id. Myers also 16 asks for awards of “monetary damages” and “punitive damages” “for mental anguish” and for 17 “medical malpractice.” Id. 18 F. 19 Myers includes former San Francisco supervisor and homelessness program director 20 Bevan Dufty (sometimes erroneously spelled “Duffy”) in his complaint as well. Id. Myers alleges 21 that Dufty took advantage of Myers’s finances by loaning Myers $25,000 and then by trying “to 22 get [Myers] to sign over all [his] life insurance.” Id. Myers asserts that Dufty “used the loan 23 against [Myers] and refused to help [Myers],” which caused Myers to lose his “apartment in 24 Washington DC” because Dufty promised to help pay for rent and then backed out. Id. Myers Allegations Against Former Supervisor Bevan Dufty 25 26 27 28 2 3 This use of “hot” is perhaps a reference to San Francisco’s Homeless Outreach Team. After discussing ECS’s failure to repair his car, Myers states: “So, I’m selling for the loss of that.” Compl. at 3. The Court understands that to mean that he is selling his car, but if some other meaning was intended and is relevant to a potentially viable claim, Myers should clarify in an amended complaint. 4 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 11 1 writes that he will attach evidence in the form of Dufty’s Cash App information, texts, and emails 2 that support the allegations of abuse, but has not attached any such evidence to his complaint. Id. 3 at 5. He requests $25,000 from Dufty, plus interest, “for his abuse of power and for his illegal 4 acts.” Id. at 3. 5 G. 6 Myers alleges that the city of San Francisco fraudulently mismanaged “project hotel room 7 key.” Id. at 4. According to Myers, the city “must not be allowed to keep getting tax payors [sic] 8 money or FEMA monies if the city’s homeless department refuses to follow the Govenors [sic] 9 order and FEMA regulations.” Id. Myers alleges as follows: 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Allegations Against the San Francisco Housing Authority and Project RoomKey when project hotel room key was started the governor and FEMA stated that only people that were 65 and older or had lung problems were able to get the room that mayor tried to hide from the public od the US government that the city was ignoring these regulations, the city only started to enforce the rules when the news did under cover stories as the mayor made staff and these hotels sign NDA’s to try to keep the public and FEMA and the state in the dark then when the city was called out for violations of the law then and only then did they enforce the law but not all the way the city was still using tax payor’s monies to buy hotel guests under project hotel room key drugs that are illegal under federal law and alcohol which is illegal under state and federal and local law the city tried to get away with this by telling the press in more than one press conference that they were using private donations and when the city was asked to provide a list of donors they could not and when the press got a copy of SFDPH’s budget it is a line item expense and even though President Biden signed an order fulling funding this program including san Francisco’s hotel program for the medically disabled and 65 and older people the city refuses to spend the monies to take the medically disabled and 65 and older off the street. 21 Id. Myers requests that the Court “freeze all federal dollars that are for this program,” and refer 22 the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s office to open an investigation to make the city return all money 23 it received for the program, unless it follows the requirements. Id. 24 Myers alleges that if the city of San Francisco had followed the rules to begin with, Myers 25 could have avoided living in his car for the last eight months. Id. He asserts that what the city and 26 the mayor have done “is text book waste and fraud and misspending of state and federal tax 27 dollars,” and they “must not be allowed to continue as it will hurt the people like me and keep us 28 on the street.” Id. Myers requests that the Court appoint an outside agency to run Project 5 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 11 1 RoomKey appropriately, or alternatively order the city to refund all money it took for the project. 2 Id. 3 4 tandem with the John Stewart Company, for “illegally” taking away Myers’s federal housing, 5 denying him rights under “state housing laws and HUD regulations.” Id. at 6. Myers requests a 6 court order that would require the SFHA to take Myers off the “national do not rent data base and 7 restore [his] housing,” in addition to requiring the SFHA and the John Stewart Company to pay 8 Myers a fine of $6 million. Id. 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Additionally, Myers faults the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”), working in H. Allegations Against University of the Pacific Dental School and San Francisco General Hospital On April 8, 2021, Myers alleges that an “oral surgery clinic doctor” checked his teeth in 12 the emergency room at San Francisco General Hospital (“SFGH”) and told Myers that his mouth 13 was not infected. Id. at 5. But the next day, when Myers visited the University of the Pacific 14 (“UOP”) dental school, a Dr. Silver allegedly told Myers that he needed to immediately extract 15 some teeth and so Myers had two teeth “on the upper right side” removed. Id. A few days later, 16 on April 14, 2021, Myers asserts that he returned to the oral surgery clinic at SFGH to have 17 another two teeth removed that had become infected through SFGH’s “lack of caring” or 18 inadequate job at monitoring Myers’s teeth. Id. Myers alleges that SFGH denied Myers care and 19 would not remove the other two teeth, which, Myers reports, Dr. Silver said could have been 20 saved if the doctors at SFGH had actually done their jobs. Id. Myers claims he now needs dental 21 implants that Medi-Cal does not cover. Id. Furthermore, Myers alleges that SFGH tried to cover 22 up its wrongdoing by changing Myers’s Social Security number on file “so that [SFGH] could 23 deny I was ever there.” Id. From SFGH, Myers requests “damages for [his] lost teeth and repairs 24 and extra damages for violating the law by messing with [his] medical file.” Id. 25 Myers also alleges that he continues to be denied proper care “under state and federal law” 26 at UOP. Id. at 6. Myers claims that the dental school still refuses to finish work in Myers’s mouth 27 even though it started treatment and received money from Medi-Cal to continue treatment of a 28 “mouth infection.” Id. Myers asserts that since he became frustrated when UOP continued to add 6 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 7 of 11 1 “unjustified extras” to his treatment, “no dentist will work on [his] mouth,” and he has lost most of 2 his teeth. Id. 3 Myers blames both UOP and SFGH for discrimination based on his mental disability, and 4 he requests a court order that would require UOP to finish treating Myers’s oral issues in addition 5 to $2 million for Medi-Cal fraud and mental and physical abuse and neglect. Id. 6 I. 7 Myers’s complaint also includes several other more general allegations against various Miscellaneous Allegations 8 entities and individuals such as former Supervisor Matt Haney’s office staff, the California DMV, 9 the San Francisco district attorney’s office, and an unnamed contractor for the San Francisco 10 Public Works department. Id. at 6, 7. 11 III. ANALYSIS 12 A. 13 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave Legal Standard for Review Under § 1915 14 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 15 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 16 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 17 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure provides that a pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 19 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint that lacks such statement fails to state a claim 20 and must be dismissed. 21 In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court assumes that all factual 22 allegations in the complaint are true. Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th 23 Cir. 1995). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is 24 inapplicable to legal conclusions” and to “mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 25 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “A pleading 26 that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 27 will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The pertinent question is whether the 28 factual allegations, assumed to be true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 7 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 8 of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 2 Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, as is the case here, courts must 3 “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. 4 Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). “A district court should not dismiss a pro 5 se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 6 complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 7 2012) (cleaned up). 8 B. 9 Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling Subject Matter Jurisdiction 10 within their subject matter jurisdiction. Two of the most common grounds for federal subject 11 matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity 12 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Federal question jurisdiction encompasses claims “arising 13 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity 14 jurisdiction encompasses cases where no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant 15 and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 16 Here, Myers’s complaint does not establish jurisdiction under § 1332 because multiple 17 listed defendants share California citizenship with Myers. The complaint also fails to establish 18 jurisdiction under § 1331, despite Myers’s vague references to some potential issues of federal law 19 regarding civil rights and regulation of health care and housing. Federal question jurisdiction 20 “extends over only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal 21 law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on 22 resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 23 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (cleaned up). This means that a federal law serves as the foundation of 24 one of the claims. See id. While Myers alleges that “federal laws” have been violated, he does not 25 specify which ones, and therefore cannot explain how they are foundational to his claims. See 26 Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 494 (1983) (“[F]or purposes of statutory 27 ‘arising under’ jurisdiction, . . . the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded 28 complaint . . . .”). 8 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 9 of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Even assuming for the sake of argument that Myers’s complaint includes claims that 2 sufficiently implicate federal laws, the complaint still appears subject to dismissal for the reasons 3 discussed in the following section. Once Myers resolves those issues, and more clearly identifies 4 the claims he wishes to assert, the Court will be in a better position to assess subject matter 5 jurisdiction. 6 C. 7 Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “pleading that states a 8 claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 9 Courts have routinely dismissed complaints that are convoluted and difficult to follow for failure 10 to comply with that rule. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Prolix, 11 confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on 12 litigants and judges.”). Myers’s Complaint Does Not Comply with Rule 8, 10, or 20 13 Here, Myers’s complaint can be difficult to follow as it recites and merges experiences 14 ranging from medical and dental care at multiple hospitals, to police harassment, to misuse of 15 taxpayer funds for COVID-19 housing, to disputes regarding car trouble, rent payment, and life 16 insurance. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the role of a complaint is not only to place 17 the defendants on notice of the allegations and claims, but also to outline the defendants’ answers 18 and dictate the framework of the case. Each defendant must respond with an answer specifically 19 admitting or denying each factual allegation of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Myers 20 attempts to lump together specific experiences with the affiliated defendant, but it is not always 21 clear where one allegation ends and another begins. A defendant would have difficulty providing 22 a specific response to Myers’s current complaint. 23 Moreover, while the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not countenance dismissal of a 24 complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted,” they require 25 at least “ ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ ” 26 sufficient to put the defendants on notice of the basis for the claims against them. See Johnson v. 27 City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 11 (2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) (emphasis added). Myers 28 has not clearly identified any particular legal claim he wishes to assert that would put any 9 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 10 of 11 1 2 Myers’s complaint also does not comply with Rule 10(b), which requires that a party 3 “must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a 4 single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). These numbered paragraphs should present 5 the particular facts of each claim in plain language and in chronological order. If Myers is able to 6 state a valid, plausible claim that warrants service on any defendants, presenting that claim in 7 numbered paragraphs as required by Rule 10(b) will allow the defendants to admit or deny 8 Myers’s allegations as required by Rule 12. 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California defendant on notice of the claims against them. 12 13 14 Lastly, Myers’s current allegations do not provide sufficient basis for joining the parties that he named. Under Rule 20(a)(2), multiple defendants may be joined in a single action where: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Myers alleges an array of transactions that incorporate entirely different 16 questions of law and fact. It is unclear how, for instance, Mayor Breed and UOP or SFGH can be 17 grouped together under the circumstances alleged in the complaint. For another example, Myers’s 18 experience with Project RoomKey and a police ticket from 2002 seem unlikely to encompass 19 common questions of fact or law. 20 While Myers is entitled leave to amend and cure these defects, it appears doubtful that a 21 single complaint based on the full scope of misfortune that Myers alleges he experienced would 22 satisfy the standard for pleading and joinder. Should Myers choose to amend his complaint, he is 23 encouraged to focus on a particular subset of defendants that he believes engaged in concerted or 24 otherwise related conduct that caused him a discrete injury actionable under federal law (or some 25 other basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction), and he should streamline his grievances 26 accordingly. At this stage of the case, when it remains uncertain which claims, defendants, and 27 conduct would be the focus of any amended complaint, the undersigned declines to reach other 28 potential flaws in Myers’s present complaint. 10 Case 3:22-cv-07813-JCS Document 5 Filed 01/19/23 Page 11 of 11 1 2 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Myers is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action 3 should not be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be 4 granted, by filing no later than February 23, 2023, either: (1) an amended complaint remedying 5 the defects identified above; or (2) a response to this order arguing why his present complaint is 6 sufficient to proceed. 7 United States District Court Northern District of California IV. Any amended complaint must include the caption and case number used in this order (22- 8 cv-07813) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an 9 amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, any amendment may not 10 incorporate claims or allegations of Myers’s original complaint by reference, but instead must 11 include all of the facts and claims Myers wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to 12 sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). If Myers files an amended 13 complaint, he is encouraged to set forth the relevant factual allegations in the order they occurred 14 in short, numbered paragraphs, and then to include clearly labeled sections identifying each legal 15 claim he wishes to assert. 16 Myers is further encouraged to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Pro Se Help Desk 17 for assistance as he continues to pursue this case. Lawyers at the Help Desk can provide basic 18 assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation. Myers may 19 contact the Help Desk at (415) 782-8982 or to schedule a telephonic 20 appointment. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 19, 2023 ______________________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28 11

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?