(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO AMEND AND RENEWED MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, IN 14 CLENDENIN, et al., FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 33) 16 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO IDENTIFY DOE DEFENDANTS 17 SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Procedural Background 20 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 21 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 22 and Institution Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of 23 the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or 25 proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without 26 screening by the Court. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint, 27 filed December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State 28 Hospitals (“DSH”), Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga (“DSH – Coalinga”), Stephanie 1 Clendenin, Brandon Price, Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt. 2 The Court did not find service appropriate for Defendants John and Jane Does 1–25 3 employed at DSH or Defendants John and Jane Does 1–25 employed at DSH – Coalinga, and 4 ordered Plaintiff to identify these defendants with enough information to locate them for service 5 of process by filing a motion to amend that included a proposed amended complaint substituting 6 the true names of the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 13.) 7 On August 26, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment 8 of counsel, denying Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis status as moot, granting in part 9 Plaintiff’s motion for a court order regarding his pro se status, granting Plaintiff’s motion for 10 service by the United States Marshals Service, and granting Plaintiff’s motion for extension of 11 time to identify Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 21.) 12 Plaintiff renewed his motions seeking appointment of counsel, in forma pauperis status, 13 an extension of time for discovery, service by the United States Marshals Service, and an 14 extension of time to identify Doe Defendants on September 27, 2021. (ECF No. 23.) The Court 15 denied these requests for the reasons explained in the Court’s August 26, 2021 order, or as moot 16 because they had previously been granted. (ECF No. 25.) 17 On November 29, 2021, Defendants DSH, DSH – Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks 18 filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 28–30.) A second attempt to serve Defendant Zelt has been 19 directed by separate order. 20 II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Renewed Motions 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing of December 27, 2021, which purports to be 22 a motion to amend to substitute the names of the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff has 23 attached a photocopy of the original complaint filed on December 23, 2019. Plaintiff also renews 24 his motions for appointment of counsel, in forma pauperis status, and discovery. (Id.) 25 As Plaintiff’s renewed requests for appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis status 26 merely reiterate arguments raised in the prior motions, those requests are denied for the same 27 reasons discussed in the Court’s August 26, 2021 order. (ECF No. 21.) To the extent Plaintiff 28 argues that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action due to his status as a civil 1 detainee (rather than a prisoner), Plaintiff is again informed that he was denied in forma pauperis 2 status because he has already paid the filing fee in full for this action, not because the Court 3 believed he was a prisoner. 4 Plaintiff’s request regarding ordering Defendants to conduct discovery regarding the 5 identities of the Doe Defendants is also denied as moot. With respect to discovery, Plaintiff is 6 again informed that discovery has not yet opened in this action. Once the Court has issued an 7 order opening discovery, Plaintiff may serve appropriate discovery requests on Defendants as 8 described in that order. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and their attorneys have 9 obstructed Plaintiff’s efforts to identify the Doe Defendants through the discovery process, 10 Plaintiff is reminded that discovery has not yet opened. At this time, the Court therefore declines 11 to find that any such obstruction has occurred, or that any sanctions are warranted with respect to 12 Plaintiff’s purported discovery requests. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request to compel 13 Defendants to identify the Doe Defendants. 14 To the extent Plaintiff is requesting leave to re-file the original complaint as an amended 15 complaint, the request is denied. It does not appear that Plaintiff has changed the original 16 complaint in any way, and he has not provided any identifying information about the Doe 17 Defendants such that an amended complaint would be appropriate at this time. The motion to 18 amend is denied without prejudice. 19 Finally, in light of Plaintiff’s continued efforts to obtain the identities of the Doe 20 Defendants, as well as the pending motion to dismiss filed by the named defendants, the Court 21 finds it appropriate to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to identify the Doe Defendants. 22 III. Order 23 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 24 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend, (ECF No. 33), is DENIED, without prejudice; 25 2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 33), is DENIED, 26 without prejudice; 27 3. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for in forma pauperis status, (ECF No. 33), is DENIED, as 28 moot; 1 4. Plaintiff’s renewed request for discovery, (ECF No. 33), is DENIED as moot; 2 5. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a motion 3 to amend with a proposed first amended complaint that identifies the true names of the 4 Doe Defendants with enough information to locate them for service of process; and 5 6. Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to amend and proposed first amended complaint in 6 compliance with this order will result in the dismissal of any unidentified Doe 7 Defendants from this action. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: June 30, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28