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

Filing 51

ORDER Denying 45 Motion to Appoint Counsel and 47 Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 4/2/2018. (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
14

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL AND MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

15
16

(ECF Nos. 45, 47)

Defendants.

17
18
19

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rudolf Shteynberg’s Motion to Appoint

20

Counsel, (ECF No. 45), and Motion to File Documents Under Seal, (ECF No. 47). On

21

May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On The Court granted Plaintiff

22

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 6.) In the same Order, the Court

23

dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint as insufficient under the mandatory screening

24

requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). (ECF No. 6, at 4.) The Court

25

instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that addressed the shortcomings in his

26

Complaint within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Instead,

27

Plaintiff has filed various motions, including several requests to appoint counsel. The

28
1
17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)

1

Court has repeatedly denied these requests for counsel because Plaintiff has not filed an

2

amended complaint.

3

Plaintiff states that he needs counsel because his income does not allow him to hire

4

an attorney. (ECF No. 45, at 4.) The Court has repeatedly explained that there is no right

5

to counsel in civil cases. A court may appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.

6

See, e.g., Burns v. Cnty. of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that appointment

7

of counsel in civil matters is restricted to “exceptional circumstances” which means “the

8

litigant must demonstrate the likelihood of success and the complexity of legal issues

9

involved”). Plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint or any explanation as to why

10

his case is exceptional.

11

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint

12

Counsel, (ECF No. 44). The Court again instructs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

13

that meets Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and explains who did what, when Defendants

14

did, and why Plaintiff believes those actions require legal relief.

15

Plaintiff also moves to file a document under seal. This document appears to be a

16

request for Plaintiff to discuss any questions this Court may have about Plaintiff’s case.

17

(ECF No. 48.) There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Foltz v.

18

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing, e.g., Hagestad

19

v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing strong presumption in

20

context of civil trial)). Plaintiff has provided no justification for why needs to file

21

documents under seal. More importantly, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

22

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal, (ECF No. 47). The Court also

23

clarifies that there are no hearings scheduled for Plaintiff because he does not have an

24

operative complaint in front of this Court.

25

Finally, Plaintiff filed a document with the Court notifying the Court that Plaintiff

26

attempted to get access the Sheriff’s Department records and was denied because the

27

Department required a court order. (ECF No. 50.) The remainder of the document is

28

illegible and does not appear to request any relief from this Court. This Court has not
2
17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)

1

issued an order allowing Plaintiff access to any records. This is because Plaintiff has not

2

complied with Court orders to file an amended complaint, nor has Plaintiff proceeded

3

beyond the initial IFP screening stage.

4

The Court has repeatedly admonished Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or else

5

his case would be dismissed with prejudice. The motions Plaintiff has filed over the past

6

year do not constitute an amended complaint.

7

complaint before this Court and again the Court instructs Plaintiff to file an amended

8

complaint describing in detail what Defendant San Diego County Jail did to him. Plaintiff

9

MAY FILE an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from that date on which this

10

Order is electronically docketed. Failure to file an amended complaint may result in this

11

case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

12
13

Plaintiff does not have an amended

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2018

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-1098 JLS (KSC)