Briceno v. Williams et al

Filing 24

ORDER (1) Denying 19 Motion to Amend without prejudice, (2) Denying 21 Motion for Court Order and Appointment of Counsel without prejudice, and (3) Setting briefing schedule on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Marcus Briceno must re spond to defendants motion by 6/28/2018. Defendants may reply by 7/12/2018. The Court will not hold oral arguments on the issue, so the 6/13/2018 hearing date is vacated. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 5/09/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Marcus D. BRICENO,

11

Case No.: 16-cv-1665-JAH-AGS
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
(ECF No. 19) WITHOUT
PREJUDICE,
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR COURT
ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL (ECF No. 21) WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and
(3) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS

Blake WILLIAMS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s June 2016 complaint as untimely. Plaintiff

20

Marcus Briceno must respond to defendants’ motion by June 28, 2018. Defendants may

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

reply by July 12, 2018. The Court will not hold oral arguments on the issue, so the June 13,
2018 hearing date is vacated.
Briceno also requests that this Court order defendants to provide him certain
discovery and appoint him counsel. As to the discovery, that request is denied. After the
motion to dismiss is decided and discovery begins, Briceno will be able to seek the
evidence he wishes. As to his request that the Court appoint him counsel, that too is denied,
but without prejudice to being raised again in the future. Briceno claims that he is unable

28
1
16-cv-1665-JAH-AGS

1

to litigate his case due to medical issues, but fails to provide any evidence or declaration

2

explaining the type or severity of his medical ailments.

3

Finally, Briceno requests an opportunity to amend his complaint. This request is also

4

denied. Briceno has not explained why the Court should permit him to amend; he simply

5

states what his proposed amendments will be. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Critically, Briceno

6

does not explain why he waited nearly two years to request this relief. See Foman v. Davis,

7

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (listing “undue delay” as a basis to reject a request to amend).

8

Nevertheless, if his complaint is deemed timely, Briceno may seek these amendments

9

again.

10

Dated: May 9, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16-cv-1665-JAH-AGS