Johnson v. Valley Medical Moorpark Lab Clinic et al

Filing 60

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying 59 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting leave for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint no later than October 24, 2014.(blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
NANCY JOHNSON,

7

Case No. 14-cv-00672-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,

10

Defendant.

[Re: ECF 59]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
GRANTING LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF
TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s third Motion to Appoint Counsel. This Court has previously

13
14

twice denied Plaintiff’s request to appoint civil counsel in the above-captioned action, informing

15

Plaintiff that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, see, e.g., Lassiter v. Dep’t of

16

Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and that there are no “exceptional circumstances” present in

17

this case that would cause the District Court to ask counsel to represent Plaintiff in this matter. Cf.

18

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s instant

19

Motion as a Motion for Leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration of its prior Order denying

20

Plaintiff the appointment of counsel, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9.

21

A party may not “repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in

22

support of or in opposition to” to the Order the party requests the Court reconsider. See Civil L.R.

23

7-9(c). Plaintiff has twice been referred to FLASH, the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center.

24

Plaintiff has repeatedly represented to the Court that FLASH has refused her assistance. See ECF

25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff states in a letter to the Court, dated August 26, 2014, that she is “seeking legal
assistance which is a right.” ECF 58 at 2. Plaintiff is incorrect. Though the Supreme Court has
held that there is a constitutional right to an attorney for indigent defendants in criminal cases, see
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), there is no corresponding right to an attorney in civil
cases. See Lassiter, 452 U.S. 18 (1981). Plaintiff’s case alleges civil claims against Defendant. As
such, she is not entitled to the appointment of at attorney.

1

58 at 1 (“Flash refuse[d] assistance. I phone[d] again the Flash Legal service 8-25-14 for

2

assistance with tort form [and was] again denied.”)

3
4

With this Motion, Plaintiff attaches a letter from the Director of FLASH, dated September
15, 2014, which states:

5

I just reviewed the docket of your case, and the letter you sent to the
Court, filed on Sept. 2, 2014. In your letter to the Court, you state
that FLASH refused to help you with filing an administrative claim
with Santa Clara County.

6
7

You and I know that is not a true statement. The truth is that on the
day you phoned FLASH for assistance, I located the Santa Clara
County administrative complaint form and mailed it to you that day.

8
9

For misleading the Court, FLASH will no longer provide service to
you.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF 59-1 at 1.
The Court appreciates Plaintiff including this information with her Motion, but this

13

statement from the Director of FLASH gives the Court pause. The Court reminds Plaintiff of her

14

duty of good faith before the Court, which requires that Plaintiff have good reason to believe that

15

everything written in a signed document presented to the Court is truthful.

16

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration, and

17

thus DENIES Plaintiff’s third Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff is instructed not to file another

18

Motion requesting counsel in this case. If Plaintiff does so, the Court will consider appropriate

19

sanctions.

20

On August 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the above-

21

captioned case, and provided Plaintiff 28 days in which to file an amended Complaint. See ECF 57

22

at 6. Plaintiff has not done so – instead she has filed a “Response” to the dismissal notice, which

23

repeated her request for the Court to appoint her an attorney, and repeated that she is “entitled to

24

relief,” but did not include an amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff filed this document with the

25

Court within the 28 days she was given, the Court will permit the Plaintiff one more opportunity

26

to file an amended Complaint with the Court. Plaintiff has been informed, in the Court’s Dismissal

27

Order, of the deficiencies in her Complaint – notably that she has not pled compliance with

28

California’s Government Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 815. See Dismissal Order, ECF 57 at 5.
2

1

The Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to file with the Court an amended Complaint,

2

which states (1) the causes of action she believes Defendant committed, or the laws she believes

3

Defendant violated; (2) the facts that give rise to these beliefs; and (3) her prayer for relief, which

4

includes the amount of damages she requests. Plaintiff must include facts that show she has

5

complied with Section 815 of the California Government Code, as instructed in the Court’s

6

Dismissal Order. Plaintiff is referred to this district’s website for pro se litigants,

7

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants, which can provide Plaintiff assistance and resources

8

to represent herself in this matter. Plaintiff is further encouraged to seek outside, private counsel if

9

she wishes to have the assistance of an attorney.
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, and ORDERS

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff to file with the Court an amended Complaint no later than Friday, October 24, 2014. If

12

Plaintiff fails to file an amended Complaint, this action will be dismissed.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3