Major v. City and County of San Francisco

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03426

ORDER DISMISSING {{22}} SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING {{24}} MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL. Case Management Conference continued to 4/5/2016 at 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 01/21/16.(kawlc2S, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MARK E. MAJOR, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03426-KAW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING SECOND v. AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 9 LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 10 FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 22, 24 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff Mark E. Major, acting pro se, commenced this case on July 24, 2015.1 (Compl., 14 Dkt. No. 1.) On August 6, 2015, the Court dismissed his complaint with leave to amend because it 15 did not provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 16 relief." (Aug. 5, 2015 Order, Dkt. No. 5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).) The original complaint 17 was over 155 pages long and included an additional 50 pages of exhibits. (See id. at 2.) 18 On November 6, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint for the same 19 reason. The amended complaint was over 130 pages long and included over 50 pages of exhibits. 20 (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 11.) 21 On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff again filed an amended complaint that resembles the prior 22 iterations of his complaint. (2d Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 24.) The complaint does not provide a 23 short and plain statement showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 24 Plaintiff strings together 90 pages of rambling, repetitive, and sometimes incoherent allegations, 25 making it difficult to discern which particular defendant engaged in the particular conduct that 26 gives rise to any of the 34 causes of action asserted in the complaint. 27 1 28 On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 7. 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff's current complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2 Within 30 days of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 3 8(a)'s requirement of a "short and plain" statement of the claim and the pertinent facts showing 4 that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff shall specifically (1) identify the legal and factual basis 5 for each cause of action, (2) identify which causes of action are brought against which defendants, 6 and (3) provide a specific statement of how each defendant engaged in the conduct that is the basis 7 for the claims asserted against him. Plaintiff is on notice that if he fails to file a complaint that 8 conforms with this order, the Court may dismiss this case with prejudice. For this reason, though 9 Plaintiff indicates that he has already contacted the Federal Pro Bono Project, the Court strongly 10 encourages Plaintiff to schedule another appointment prior to filing his complaint. Additionally, if 11 Plaintiff requires more than 30 days to file a proper complaint, he may file a motion for an 12 extension of time. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 23, 2015, is also 14 DENIED. In general, there is no right to appointed counsel in a civil action. See United States v. 15 McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 1978). But the court, in its discretion, may appoint 16 counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) if it finds that there are "exceptional circumstances." 17 Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining 18 whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court evaluates the plaintiff's likelihood of success on 19 the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his or her claims in light of the complexity of the 20 legal issues involved in the case. Id. 21 Plaintiff's belief that his case is exceptional is insufficient, and at this stage, the Court does 22 not find that the circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Depending on how this case 23 progresses, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion at a later date if he can satisfy the legal standard 24 discussed above. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 The case management conference currently scheduled for January 26, 2016 is 2 CONTINUED to April 5, 2016. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: 01/21/16 __________________________________ 5 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3