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)
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?