Shteynberg v. San Diego County Jail Sheriff's Department Medical Team

Filing 19

ORDER on Various Motions: 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; 10 Motion Stop Correspondence to Mailing Address; 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; 14 Motion to Expedite; 16 Motion to Expedite; denying 16 Request to Expedite, Appoint Counsel, Stop Mail and Transfer Case; denying 18 Motion for Recusal. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. But out of an abundance of fairness to Plaintiff, the Court grants Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from th e date on which this Order is electronically docketed to file an amended complaint. The Court, again, instructs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that explains, among other things, who did what, when they it, and why Plaintiff believes t hose actions require legal relief. Failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days may result in this case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is ordered that the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF Nos. 8, 12, 16). Thus, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 14). Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion, (ECF No. 10). The Court denies with prejudice Plaintiffs Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF No. 16). Finally, Plaintiff asks the undersigned to recuse from the case and "to appoint a Judge acting in the same ethnicity / or language which is Russian/ English...." (ECF No. 18.) Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal, (ECF No. 18). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/1/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUDOLF SHTEYNBERG,

Case No.: 17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ON VARIOUS MOTIONS

v.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT MEDICAL
TEAM,

15
16

(ECF Nos. 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21

Presently before the Court are a flurry of motions filed by Plaintiff Rudolf

22

Shteynberg over the last two weeks. Among them are several motions to appoint pro bono

23

legal counsel. (ECF Nos. 8, 12, 16.) On June 30, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion

24

to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF

25

No. 6.) The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint, which he has

26

not done. As the Court previously explained in that Order, Plaintiff must file an operative

27

complaint that explains, through factual allegations, exactly what happened in his case; he

28

cannot simply list the names of causes of action. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended
1
17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)

1

complaint. But out of an abundance of fairness to Plaintiff, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff

2

an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed

3

to file an amended complaint. The Court, again, instructs Plaintiff to file an amended

4

complaint that explains, among other things, who did what, when they it, and why Plaintiff

5

believes those actions require legal relief. Failure to file an amended complaint within

6

thirty days may result in this case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

7

Accordingly, while Plaintiff asks for the appointment of legal counsel, the Court is

8

unable to do so because Plaintiff has no operative complaint, or any pleading, which alleges

9

facts sufficient to meet the exceptional circumstances required for the Court to exercise its

10

discretionary authority to appoint counsel in civil matters. See, e.g., Burns v. Cty. of King,

11

883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that appointment of counsel in civil matters is

12

restricted to “exceptional circumstances” which means “the litigant must demonstrate the

13

likelihood of success and the complexity of legal issues involved”). For this reason the

14

Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF

15

Nos. 8, 12, 16). Thus, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite (ECF

16

No. 14).

17

Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks to stop all court correspondence from being sent to the

18

address provided in his filing due to family considerations. (ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, the

19

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF No. 10). The Clerk SHALL cease

20

correspondence to the listed address and instead direct all further communications from the

21

Court to the address recently added to his case file.

22

Plaintiff has also filed what appears to be a motion to transfer venue. (ECF No. 16.)

23

Specifically, Plaintiff asks for the “[t]ransfer of the case to Los Angeles County.” (Id. at

24

1.) However, besides not being tethered to an operative complaint, or explaining why he

25

wants to transfer the case to Los Angeles, Plaintiff’s request fails to engage with any of the

26

venue transfer considerations outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Without more, the Court

27

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF No. 16).

28

Finally, Plaintiff asks the undersigned to recuse from the case and “to appoint a Judge
2
17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)

1

acting in the same ethnicity / or language which is Russian / English . . . .” (ECF No. 18.)

2

The Court understands that Plaintiff may have difficulty understanding the Court’s Orders.

3

So the Court will do as much as possible to clearly explain to Plaintiff what he must do for

4

his case to proceed.1 However, the Court does not find that this a reason for disqualification

5

or recusal of the undersigned. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 455 (discussing instances wherein a

6

judge must be disqualified from presiding over a case). Accordingly, the Court DENIES

7

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal, (ECF No. 18).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As discussed, that starts with Plaintiff filing a new complaint that tells the Court what his case is about.
3
17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)