Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00844/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00844-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY MEDINA, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COURTNEY MAPES, M.D.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG

ORDER (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS 

TO EACH FILE INDIVIDUAL LONG FORM 

APPLICATIONS; (2) DIRECTING THE 

CLERK OF COURT TO SEND PLAINTIFFS 

LONG FORM APPLICATIONS; (3) 

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL AND; (4) GRANTING 

EXTENSION AS TO EXPERT REBUTTAL

DEADLINE

(ECF Nos. 44, 45).

Plaintiffs, now proceeding pro se, have filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

(ECF No. 45), as well as a motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44). For the reasons 

that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis without 

prejudice, deny Plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of counsel, and grant Plaintiff’s request for 

an extension of the expert rebuttal deadline. 

However, Plaintiffs are warned that no further extensions will be given absent good cause, 

and if Plaintiffs cannot find alternate counsel, they will have to proceed pro se. If Plaintiffs miss 

future deadlines, the case will be dismissed for a failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court 

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 46 Filed 06/07/23 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

order.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Bradley Medina and Svetlana Krivencheva initiated this case by filing a 

complaint on May 25, 2021, alleging claims for medical negligence, lack of informed consent, 

and loss of consortium pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2671, et seq. (Federal Tort Claims Act). (ECF 

No. 1). 

On April 21, 2023, the Court granted Patricia I. James’s renewed motion to withdraw as 

counsel of record for Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 43). The Court found good cause to grant the motion to 

withdraw because Plaintiffs’ counsel “established that she [was] unable to effectively represent 

Plaintiffs due to disagreements regarding the direction of Plaintiffs’ case and a breakdown of the 

attorney-client relationship.” (Id. at p. 5). The Court’s order advised Plaintiffs that “[a]ll dates 

previously set, including Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert designation deadline of May 19, 2023, remain 

unchanged.” (Id. at p. 5 n.2 (citing ECF No. 40)). Further, the Court indicated that should 

“Plaintiffs require additional time to retain new counsel or proceed in this case, Plaintiffs may file 

a motion to modify the schedule.” (Id.)

II. IFP APPLICATION

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 45). 

Because there are two main deficiencies with the IFP application, the Court will direct each 

Plaintiff to file a new and separate application.

First, while the application appears to be signed by both Plaintiffs, it only contains 

Plaintiff Medina’s financial information. (ECF No. 45). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a pro se

plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of fees by submitting “an affidavit that includes a 

statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give 

security therefor.” See Flores v. California Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-1509-NONEJLT, 2020 WL 8821643, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020) (noting that § 1915(a)(1) applies to nonprisoner plaintiffs). Without knowing each Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the Court cannot 

conclude that they are eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court will require 

each Plaintiff to file a separate application containing only the individual Plaintiff’s financial 

information. See Remmert v. Newsome, No. 1:23-CV-00050-ADA-HBK, 2023 WL 1806277, at 

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 46 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

*2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023) (requiring each Plaintiff to submit their own separate application if 

they wished to proceed IFP).

Second, because Plaintiffs’ application does not currently provide sufficient information 

for the Court to conclude that they are entitled to proceed in this action in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court will direct each Plaintiff to file a long form application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

III. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel, stating 

that although Plaintiffs have contacted twenty-six law firms regarding representation, Plaintiffs 

have been given “various reasons” as to why they should “pursue this redress on [their] own.” 

(ECF No. 44, p. 1). Plaintiffs assert that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) “empowers federal courts to make 

compulsory appointments of counsel in civil actions.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs are incorrect about their right to counsel in civil actions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1), the Court may request that an attorney represent an indigent party in a civil case. 

However, the appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right, and the Court 

cannot require an attorney to represent a party. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 

Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998); Mallard v. United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Without a 

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek the voluntary 

assistance of counsel only in the most serious and exceptional circumstances. Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, “a district court must evaluate 

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his 

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

As discussed above, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiffs’ application to 

proceed in forma pauperis.

However, regardless of whether Plaintiffs are able to make the requisite financial showing 

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 46 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), the Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel. The Court 

has reviewed the record in this case, and at this time, the Court is unable to make a determination 

that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Moreover, it appears that 

Plaintiffs can adequately litigate their claims, as indicated by their ability to oppose Ms. James’s 

motions to withdraw as counsel and their personal attendance at the motion for withdrawal 

hearing. (See ECF Nos. 33, 37, 41). While Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions to withdraw were 

ultimately unsuccessful, Plaintiffs have shown an ability to cogently articulate their position and 

advocate in favor of their case. Lastly, while Plaintiffs indicate they have been unsuccessful in 

obtaining counsel, Plaintiffs offer no developed argument for why the Court should appoint 

counsel in this case. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel. 

IV. REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel also includes a “motion for modification of 

court calendar.” (ECF No. 44, p. 2). Plaintiffs request an extension of the expert rebuttal deadline, 

which passed on May 19, 2023. (Id.) Because Plaintiffs have been unsuccessful in their attempts 

to retain counsel, and will continue to proceed pro se, the Court finds good cause to extend the 

expert rebuttal deadline by thirty days. However, the Court advises Plaintiffs that all dates 

previously set, including the expert discovery deadline of July 14, 2023, remain unchanged.1

If Plaintiffs require additional time, Plaintiffs may file a motion to modify the schedule. 

However, the Court will only grant such motion for good cause, and will not extend the deadline 

again because Plaintiffs lack counsel. While Plaintiffs may continue to seek counsel, at this time 

and given the Court’s order on the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, they must 

proceed to litigate without counsel if they intend to proceed with this case. Otherwise, the case 

will be dismissed for a failure to prosecute and/or obey a court order.

\\\

1 The remaining deadlines in the Court’s amended scheduling order are as follows: Expert Discovery due 

by 7/14/2023; Dispositive motions filed by September 15, 2023; Pretrial Conference set for 1/22/2023 at 

1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 4 (JLT) before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; and the Jury Trial set for 

3/26/2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Courtroom 4 (JLT) before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (ECF Nos. 21, 

38).

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 46 Filed 06/07/23 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

V. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 45) is DENIED without 

prejudice;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward two copies of the in forma pauperis

application (Long Form) to Plaintiffs;

3. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall each file a separate 

long form application to proceed in forma pauperis, accurately, truthfully, and completely 

answering all questions if they wish to proceed in forma pauperis; 

4. Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44) is DENIED;

5. Further, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to modify the schedule (see ECF No. 44, 

p. 2), and extends the rebuttal expert designation deadline by thirty days, to July 6, 2023. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 46 Filed 06/07/23 Page 5 of 5