(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 10 v. (2) DENYING RENEWED APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS 11 CLENDENIN, et al., MOOT; (3) DENYING RENEWED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 12 Defendants. DISCOVERY AS MOOT; (4) DENYING REQUEST FOR SERVICE BY UNITED 13 STATES MARSHALS SERVICE AS MOOT; AND (5) DENYING REQUEST FOR 14 EXTENSION OF TIME TO IDENTIFY DOE DEFENDANTS AS MOOT 15 (ECF No. 23) 16 17 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 19 and Institution Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of 20 the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or 22 proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without 23 screening by the Court. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint, 24 filed December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State 25 Hospitals, Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga, Stephanie Clendenin, Brandon Price, 26 Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt. 27 On August 26, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment 28 of counsel, denying Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis status as moot, granting in part 1 Plaintiff’s motion for a court order regarding his pro se status, granting Plaintiff’s motion for 2 service by the United States Marshals Service, and granting Plaintiff’s motion for extension of 3 time to identify Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 21.) 4 Plaintiff submitted service documents for Defendants on September 27, 2021, (ECF No. 5 22), and those documents were forwarded to the United States Marshals Service the same date, 6 (ECF No. 24). 7 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, also filed September 27, 2021, renewing 8 his motions for: appointment of counsel, in forma pauperis status, extension of time to conduct 9 discovery, service by the United States Marshals Service, and extension of time to identify Doe 10 Defendants. (ECF No. 23.) 11 As Plaintiff’s renewed requests for appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis status 12 merely reiterate arguments raised in the prior motion, those requests are denied for the same 13 reasons discussed in the Court’s August 26, 2021 order. (ECF No. 21.) To the extent Plaintiff 14 argues that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action due to his status as a civil 15 detainee (rather than a prisoner), Plaintiff is informed that he was denied in forma pauperis status 16 because he has already paid the filing fee in full for this action, not because the Court believed he 17 was a prisoner. 18 Plaintiff’s request for service by the United States Marshals Service is denied as moot. 19 The Court has already granted this request, and the United States Marshals Service has already 20 been ordered to serve the complaint in this action on the named Defendants. Plaintiff is not 21 required to take any other actions to serve the named Defendants. 22 Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to conduct discovery is also denied as moot. 23 With respect to discovery, Plaintiff is informed that discovery has not yet opened in this action 24 because the named Defendants have not yet been served a copy of the complaint and summons. 25 Once the named Defendants are served and the Court has issued an order opening discovery, 26 Plaintiff may serve appropriate discovery requests on Defendants as described in that order. 27 Finally, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to identify the Doe Defendants is 28 denied, without prejudice. The Court recently set a ninety-day deadline for Plaintiff to identify 1 the Doe Defendants, and Plaintiff’s motion to amend and proposed first amended complaint 2 identifying the Doe Defendants is not due until November 29, 2021, two months from the date of 3 this order. If Plaintiff requires additional time to identify the Doe Defendants, he may submit 4 another request closer to the current deadline. This will provide the United States Marshals 5 Service additional time to serve the named Defendants and for Plaintiff to submit discovery 6 requests regarding the identities of the Doe Defendants. 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 8 1. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 23), is DENIED, 9 without prejudice; 10 2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for in forma pauperis status, (ECF No. 23), is DENIED as 11 moot; 12 3. Plaintiff’s renewed request for extension of time to conduct discovery, (ECF No. 23), is 13 DENIED as moot; 14 4. Plaintiff’s motion for service by the United States Marshals Service, (ECF No. 23), is 15 DENIED as moot; and 16 5. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to identify Doe Defendants, (ECF No. 23), is 17 DENIED, without prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: September 29, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28