Antonetti v. Filson et al

Filing 13

ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 11 ) is denied. On or before May 31, 2019, Plaintiff must file his amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his original complaint. It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by May 31, 2019, this action will proceed immediately in accordance with this Court's rulings in its October 3, 2018 screening order. It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12 ) is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking appointment of counsel in the future. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

7

Case No. 3:17-cv-00605-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
8
FILSON, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11
12

I.

DISCUSSION

13

This is a pro se federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Well

14

over seven months ago, on October 3, 2018, the Court issued a screening order in this

15

case that permitted some claims to proceed and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the

16

Complaint to cure its deficiencies. (ECF No. 5.) In the screening order, the Court

17

explained the relevant law and what Plaintiff needed to do to cure the deficiencies in his

18

Complaint. (Id.) The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file a

19

motion for reconsideration and an extension of time to amend the Complaint. (ECF No.

20

8.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a 21-page motion for reconsideration challenging the

21

Court’s rulings in connection with all of the eight counts in his Complaint. (ECF No. 9.)

22

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and reminded Plaintiff of the deadline for

23

filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10 at 14.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file an

24

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint is May 31, 2019,

25

almost eight months after the Court issued its screening order and a month after the Court

26

issued its ruling on the motion for reconsideration. However, Plaintiff now filed a motion

27

for another extension of time to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) He also has

28

///

1

filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 12.) For the reasons discussed below,

2

the Court denies both motions.

3

A.

Motion for Extension of Time

4

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time because he has more than five active and

5

pending cases, serves as a mentor, and did not receive the Court’s order on the motion

6

for reconsideration until a week after it was sent. (ECF No. 11.)

7

The Court denies the motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff had the screening

8

order, which contains the relevant law and guidance for amending the complaint, for

9

nearly seven months before he received the order on the motion for reconsideration. In

10

addition, after ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court provided Plaintiff

11

with an additional 30 days to file the amended complaint, which is the period of time the

12

Court generally grants plaintiffs to amend their complaints. In short, Plaintiff has had more

13

than sufficient time—nearly eight months—to amend the deficiencies in his Complaint,

14

and further delay would unnecessarily keep this case from progressing past initial

15

screening for even longer.1 The Court therefore denies the motion for an extension of

16

time to file an amended complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff later filing a motion to

17

amend the complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2

18

B.

19

In his motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff maintains that he is given only

20

two pieces of paper per week and two envelopes per week and that he has no legal

21

assistance and no access to Nevada case law. (ECF No. 12 at 1-3.) Plaintiff also

22

maintains that the issues in the case are complex and include medical claims, and he

23
24
25
26
27
28

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

1Furthermore,

although the Court previously informed Plaintiff that a motion for
reconsideration may not be used to relitigate matters already decided by the Court, much
of his motion for reconsideration was devoted to relitigating matters the Court already
decided, and Plaintiff conceded in his motion that he could have written some of the
claims better but nevertheless challenged the Court’s rulings on such claims. (See ECF
No. 9 at 13; ECF No. 10.) If Plaintiff had time to devote to such a motion, he had time to
amend the Complaint using the law and guidance the Court provided to Plaintiff in early
October 2018.
2The

Court would resolve any such motion based on the merits of the motion and
the relevant law.
2

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

It is therefore ordered that the motion for extension of time to file an amended

3

complaint (ECF No. 11) is denied. On or before May 31, 2019, Plaintiff must file his

4

amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his original complaint.

5

It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by May 31,

6

2019, this action will proceed immediately in accordance with this Court’s rulings in its

7

October 3, 2018 screening order.

8
9
10

It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is
denied without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking appointment of counsel in the future.
DATED THIS 28th day of May 2019.

11
12

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4