Major v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING 22 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING 24 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL. Case Management Conference continued to 4/5/2016 at 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 01/21/16.(kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MARK E. MAJOR,

7

Case No. 15-cv-03426-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 22, 24

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

12
Plaintiff Mark E. Major, acting pro se, commenced this case on July 24, 2015.1 (Compl.,

13
14

Dkt. No. 1.) On August 6, 2015, the Court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend because it

15

did not provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

16

relief." (Aug. 5, 2015 Order, Dkt. No. 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).) The original complaint

17

was over 155 pages long and included an additional 50 pages of exhibits. (See id. at 2.)

18

On November 6, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint for the same

19

reason. The amended complaint was over 130 pages long and included over 50 pages of exhibits.

20

(Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 11.)

21

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff again filed an amended complaint that resembles the prior

22

iterations of his complaint. (2d Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 24.) The complaint does not provide a

23

short and plain statement showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

24

Plaintiff strings together 90 pages of rambling, repetitive, and sometimes incoherent allegations,

25

making it difficult to discern which particular defendant engaged in the particular conduct that

26

gives rise to any of the 34 causes of action asserted in the complaint.

27
1

28

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 7.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's current complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

1
2

Within 30 days of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with Rule

3

8(a)'s requirement of a "short and plain" statement of the claim and the pertinent facts showing

4

that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff shall specifically (1) identify the legal and factual basis

5

for each cause of action, (2) identify which causes of action are brought against which defendants,

6

and (3) provide a specific statement of how each defendant engaged in the conduct that is the basis

7

for the claims asserted against him. Plaintiff is on notice that if he fails to file a complaint that

8

conforms with this order, the Court may dismiss this case with prejudice. For this reason, though

9

Plaintiff indicates that he has already contacted the Federal Pro Bono Project, the Court strongly
encourages Plaintiff to schedule another appointment prior to filing his complaint. Additionally, if

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff requires more than 30 days to file a proper complaint, he may file a motion for an

12

extension of time.

13

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 23, 2015, is also

14

DENIED. In general, there is no right to appointed counsel in a civil action. See United States v.

15

McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1978). But the court, in its discretion, may appoint

16

counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) if it finds that there are "exceptional circumstances."

17

Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining

18

whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court evaluates the plaintiff's likelihood of success on

19

the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his or her claims in light of the complexity of the

20

legal issues involved in the case. Id.
Plaintiff's belief that his case is exceptional is insufficient, and at this stage, the Court does

21
22

not find that the circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Depending on how this case

23

progresses, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion at a later date if he can satisfy the legal standard

24

discussed above.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3
4

The case management conference currently scheduled for January 26, 2016 is
CONTINUED to April 5, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 01/21/16
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3