(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT 9 v. OF COUNSEL, IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO 10 CLENDENIN, et al., OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 11 Defendants. (ECF No. 60) 12 13 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 14 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 15 and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning 16 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or 18 proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without 19 screening. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed 20 December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State Hospitals 21 (“DSH”), Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga (“DSH – Coalinga”), Stephanie Clendenin, 22 Brandon Price, Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt. 23 Defendants DSH, DSH – Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks filed a motion to dismiss 24 on August 2, 2022. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 16, 2022, including 25 more than 130 pages of exhibits. (ECF No. 45.) Following an extension of time, Defendants 26 DSH, DSH – Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 48.) Defendant 27 Zelt joined in the motion to dismiss on October 11, 2022. (ECF No. 53.) That motion is fully 28 briefed and pending before the Court. 1 On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion renewing his requests for appointment of 2 counsel and in forma pauperis status, as well as a request for a 60-day extension of time to 3 oppose Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 60.) Defendants did not file a response, and 4 the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 5 Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel and for in forma pauperis status are 6 summarily denied. The Court has previously and repeatedly denied Plaintiff’s motions for 7 appointment of counsel, (ECF Nos. 21, 25, 36, 39, 57), and motions for in forma pauperis status, 8 (ECF Nos. 10, 21, 25, 36, 39, 57), and Plaintiff presents no new argument or evidence to support 9 a different determination. In fact, Plaintiff has merely attached photocopies of his prior requests, 10 as well as the Court’s prior denials. Plaintiff is admonished that if he continues to file 11 repeated requests that offer no new evidence or arguments, the requests will be summarily 12 denied and he may be subject to sanctions for wasting judicial resources. 13 Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to 14 dismiss is denied, as moot. As noted above, Plaintiff already filed an extensive opposition to the 15 motion to dismiss, which was received by the Court on September 12, 2022. (ECF No. 45.) No 16 further briefing is required. Plaintiff is warned that if attempts to file another opposition or a 17 surreply brief in response to the motion to dismiss, the filing will be stricken. 18 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, to grant in forma pauperis status, and for extension 20 of time, (ECF No. 60), are SUMMARILY DENIED; and 21 2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ motion to 22 dismiss, (ECF No. 60), is DENIED as moot. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: January 26, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28