Opinion
1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC)
01-26-2023
SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Plaintiff, v. CLENDENIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (ECF NO. 60)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”') is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without screening. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint, filed December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State Hospitals (“DSH”), Department of State Hospitals - Coalinga (“DSH - Coalinga”), Stephanie Clendenin, Brandon Price, Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt.
Defendants DSH, DSH - Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks filed a motion to dismiss on August 2, 2022. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 16, 2022, including more than 130 pages of exhibits. (ECF No. 45.) Following an extension of time, Defendants DSH, DSH - Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 48.) Defendant Zelt joined in the motion to dismiss on October 11, 2022. (ECF No. 53.) That motion is fully briefed and pending before the Court.
On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion renewing his requests for appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis status, as well as a request for a 60-day extension of time to oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 60.) Defendants did not file a response, and the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(1).
Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel and for in forma pauperis status are summarily denied. The Court has previously and repeatedly denied Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, (ECF Nos. 21, 25, 36, 39, 57), and motions for in forma pauperis status, (ECF Nos. 10, 21, 25, 36, 39, 57), and Plaintiff presents no new argument or evidence to support a different determination. In fact, Plaintiff has merely attached photocopies of his prior requests, as well as the Court's prior denials. Plaintiff is admonished that if he continues to file repeated requests that offer no new evidence or arguments, the requests will be summarily denied and he may be subject to sanctions for wasting judicial resources.
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied, as moot. As noted above, Plaintiff already filed an extensive opposition to the motion to dismiss, which was received by the Court on September 12, 2022. (ECF No. 45.) No further briefing is required. Plaintiff is warned that if attempts to file another opposition or a surreply brief in response to the motion to dismiss, the filing will be stricken.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel, to grant in forma pauperis status, and for extension of time, (ECF No. 60), are SUMMARILY DENIED; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 60), is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.