Santiago v. Brennan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 WILLIE ROMERO SANTIAGO, Case No.: 20-CV-1571 YGR 7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION 8 OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED vs. COMPLAINT; DENYING REQUEST RE: 9 AFFIDAVITS; MEGAN J. BRENNAN, United States DENYING MOTION RE: 14TH AMENDMENT; 10 Postmaster General, GRANTING MOTION RE: DISMISSAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM 11 Defendant. DKT. NO. 32, 34, 35 12 13 Plaintiff Willie R. Santiago has filed a series of motions. The first is a motion requesting the 14 following of the Court: (1) for an extension of time to submit his First Amended Complaint; and (2) 15 directing certain affidavits be presented to “appointed members of the jury.” (Dkt. No. 32.) 16 Defendant Louis Dejoy filed his response. Plaintiff filed two additional motions: the first, at Docket 17 No. 34, requesting that the Court grant him equal protection under the 14th Amendment, apparently 18 to the effect that he be appointed counsel to represent him in this matter; and the second at Docket 19 No. 35, requesting that the Court dismiss his claim of violation of the First Amendment against the 20 U.S. Postal Service. 21 With respect to the motion at Docket No. 32, the Court ORDERS that: 22 (1) The motion for extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. 23 Plaintiff Willie R. Santiago shall file his First Amended Complaint no later than September 2, 24 2020. Defendant shall file his response 14 days thereafter. 25 (2) The request to direct members of the jury to review certain affidavits is DENIED 26 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. At this stage of the case, plaintiff must first state his claims in his complaint, 27 and the defendant must have an opportunity to respond to that complaint. Assuming his complaint 28 survives any intervening motions from defendant and is set for a jury trial, plaintiff then will have an 1 || opportunity to request that affidavits and other evidence be presented to them at a pre-trial 2 || conference prior to the trial. The Court will not order that any evidence to be presented to a jury 3 || before a pre-trial conference. 4 With respect to the motion at Docket No. 34, which the Court construes as a renewed motior 5 || for appointment of counsel, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As the Court previously 6 || stated in its Order of June 20, 2020 (Dkt. No. 20), in civil proceedings there generally is no 7 || constitutional right to counsel, absent exceptional circumstances. See United States v. 30.64 Acres ¢ 8 || Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) (“There is normally. . . no constitutional right to counsel in 9 |/acivil case.”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 10 |} Cir. 2004) (decision of whether to request counsel is within the discretion of the court and is 11 || “granted only in exceptional circumstances”). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires that 2 plaintiff first articulate the nature of his claims, which it cannot do at this point. See Wilborn v. E 13 || Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th a 14 || Cir. 1983)). The Court may reconsider the request for appointment of counsel later in the 15 || proceedings but will not do so before plaintiff files an amended complaint and considers defendant’: Z 16 || response to that amended complaint. 5 17 With respect to the motion at Docket No. 35, the motion is construed as a request for 18 || voluntary dismissal of any First Amendment claim plaintiff has alleged against defendants and is “ 19 || GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to delete that claim from any First Amended Complaint that he files. 20 This terminates Docket Nos. 32, 34, and 35. 21 IT Is SO ORDERED. || Date: August 26, 2020 Lyvent Hgtilflecss— YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGER 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28