Lonergan v. Providence Health Services

Filing 25

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(l), a party may file an amended pleading once as a matter of course. Additionally, Plai ntiff has been Ordered to file an Amended Complaint if he wishes to further proceed with this action. Plaintiff simply needs to file the Amended Complaint; no motion is required at this time. Due to recent delays with mail delivery, the court exten ds the deadline to file the Amended Complaint from November 6, 2020 to November 9, 2020. Again, the court cautions Plaintiff to timely file his Amended Complaint and warns him for the final time that no further deadline extensions will be permitte d. LR 16-3. Failure to file the Amended Complaint by November 9, 2020, may result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24 ) is DENIED. In light of three previous pro bono appointment terminations , the court ordered that no further pro bono appointments would be made. (Scheduling Order, ECF No. 21 .) The court adheres to that ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 21st day of October, 2020, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 10/21/2020.) (pjg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

BRADFORD LONERGAN,

Case No. 3:20-cv-00920-AC

Plaintiff,

ORDER

V.

PROVIDENCE HEALTH SERVICES,
Defendant.

ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge:
On October 19, 2020,pro se Plaintiff Bradford Lonergan filed a Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24).
For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED.

Background
On June 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting a variety of constitutional and
statutory violations.

On June 11, 2020, the court issued a Findings and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") be granted and

Page 1 - ORDER

that his Complaint failed to state a claim for relief and should be dismissed. (F&R, ECF No. 4.)
On July 2, 2020, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon adopted that recommendation, and ordered
that Plaintiffs application to proceed IFP be granted. Also, Judge Simon dismissed Plaintiffs
claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 287 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 with prejudice and without leave to amend. And, Judge Simon dismissed Plaintiffs
remaining claims without prejudice and provided Plaintiff until August 3, 2020, to file an
Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in the Findings and Recommendation.
(Order, ECF No. 8.)
On July 22, 2020, the court conducted a status conference by telephone.

At the

conference, the court stated it would appoint a lawyer from the court's voluntary Pro Bono Panel, 1
and extended the time for Plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint to September 8, 2020. (Minutes
of Proceeding, ECF No. 11). Following three unsuccessful attempts to appoint pro bono counsel
for Plaintiff, on September 8, 2020, the court ordered that no further pro bono appointments would
be made, and the court again extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to
September 22, 2020.

(Scheduling Order, ECF No. 21.)

The court cautioned Plaintiff that

pursuant to Local Rule 16-3, no further extensions of time would be given absent a showing of
good cause and effective use of prior time. (Id) On September 25, 2020, after expiration of the
deadline to file an Amended Complaint, the court granted Plaintiffs oral motion for extension of
time to file his Amended Complaint and gave Plaintiff until November 6, 2020 to do so. (Order,
ECFNo. 22.)

1

Lawyers voluntarily participate in the court's pro bono panel program and they are free to decline
an appointment.
Page 2 - ORDER

On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and a Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. (ECF Nos. 23 &24.)
Order

Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as
MOOT. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(l), a party may file an amended
pleading once as a matter of course. Additionally, Plaintiff has been Ordered to file an Amended
Complaint if he wishes to further proceed with this action. Plaintiff simply needs to file the
Amended Complaint; no motion is required at this time. Due to recent delays with mail delivery,
the court extends the deadline to file the Amended Complaint from November 6, 2020 to
November 9, 2020. Again, the court cautions Plaintiff to timely file his Amended Complaint and
warns him for the final time that no further deadline extensions will be permitted. LR 16-3.
Failure to file the Amended Complaint by November 9, 2020, may result in dismissal of this action.
Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. In light of three
previous pro bono appointment terminations, the court ordered that no further pro bono
appointments would be made. (Scheduling Order, ECF No. 21.) The court adheres to that ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this __ day of October, 2020.

(/1Jr(2(
'''----71 .

"--<( ~
! J1OHNV.ACOSTA
Uniteid States Magistrate Judge

\ J

Page 3 - ORDER