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

Filing 35

ORDER Denying 23 Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Court Denies Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 23 ) and grants Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/18/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

Download PDF
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 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT MEDICAL TEAM, (ECF No. 23) 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rudolf Shteynberg’s Motion to Appoint Pro 22 Bono Legal Counsel. (ECF No. 23.) On June 30, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion 23 to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. (“First 24 Order,” ECF No. 6.) The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint, 25 which he failed to do. Plaintiff instead filed a variety of motions including a renewed 26 motion to appoint counsel, which the Court subsequently denied on August 2, 2017. 27 (“Second Order,” ECF No. 19.) The Court gave Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an 28 amended complaint. Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed: (1) various 1 17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC) 1 letters responding to the Second Order, (ECF Nos. 21, 25), (2) letters showing that Plaintiff 2 requested his medical records from San Diego Sheriff’s Department, (ECF Nos. 20, 29), 3 and (3) a third Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 23.) 4 As the Court previously explained in both its First and Second Orders, Plaintiff must 5 file an operative complaint that explains, through factual allegations, exactly what 6 happened in his case, i.e., who did what to Plaintiff, what were the circumstances, how was 7 he wronged. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. The Court notes, 8 however, that one of Plaintiff’s filings alludes to an incident where Plaintiff was “left with 9 no medical assistance for about 2 weeks before Holaween [sic] Day” 2014. (ECF No. 29, 10 at 1.) Plaintiff mentions some sort of medical operation that took place while in custody of 11 the San Diego Sheriff’s Department in County Jail and states that he is currently working 12 on obtaining his medical records. (Id.) While this falls short of an operative complaint with 13 allegations, Plaintiff has provided some detail not previously disclosed. 14 Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date on 15 which this Order is electronically docketed to file an amended complaint. The Court, again, 16 instructs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that plausibly explains, among other things, 17 who did what, when they did it, and what happened to Plaintiff. Failure to file an amended 18 complaint within thirty days may result in this case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 19 Accordingly, while Plaintiff asks for the appointment of legal counsel, the Court is 20 unable to evaluate his motion because Plaintiff has no operative complaint, or any pleading, 21 which alleges facts sufficient to meet either the exceptional circumstances or the 22 complexity of legal issues required for the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to 23 appoint counsel in civil matters. See, e.g., Burns v. Cty. of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th 24 Cir. 1989) (noting that appointment of counsel in civil matters is restricted to “exceptional 25 circumstances” which means “the litigant must demonstrate the likelihood of success and 26 the complexity of legal issues involved”). 27 /// 28 2 17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC) 1 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 23) and GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) 3 days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed to file an amended 4 complaint. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 18, 2017 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)

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?