Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00076/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00076-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHANNON O. MURPHY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

OFFICE OF THE U.S. SENATOR, KAMALA 

HARRIS, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 19-cv-00076-YGR 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AFTER COMPLAINT 

WAS DISMISSED

Re: Dkt. No. 19 

On January 4, 2019, plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 

against the Office of U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris as well as a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) On January 8, 2019, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, granting 

plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and issued a screening order under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) finding that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim and instructing plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified therein by February 8, 2019. (Dkt. No. 

5.) Judge Kim cautioned that failure to file a timely amended complaint would result in a 

recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id.) 

 On February 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of Judge Kim’s January 8, 

2019 screening order. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by February 8, 

2019. On February 11, 2019, Judge Kim denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but, in light 

of plaintiff’s pro se status, extended the deadline for plaintiff to file her amended complaint to 

March 11, 2019. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff failed to so file, and on April 1, 2019, Judge Kim issued a 

referral for reassignment and a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of 

plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 9.) Therein, Judge Kim noted that not all 

parties had consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

therefore ordered that the case be reassigned to a District Judge. (Id.) Also on April 1, 2019, 

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 20 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of Judge Kim’s order denying plaintiff’s initial request 

for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 10) as well as an amended complaint (Dkt No. 11) and a case 

management statement (Dkt. No. 12). On April 3, 2019, based on plaintiff’s pro se status and 

stated mental health issues, Judge Kim vacated the April 1, 2019 referral for reassignment and 

recommendation for dismissal and therefore denying plaintiff’s request for reconsideration as 

moot. (Dkt. No. 13.) 

On April 5, 2019 Judge Kim issued a second Report and Recommendation recommending 

dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice (“R&R”). (Dkt. No. 14.) Therein, 

Judge Kim again found, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) that plaintiff’s amended complaint failed 

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. No party filed a timely objection, and on May 

6, 2019, this Court adopted the R&R and dismissed plaintiff’s action without prejudice for failure 

to state a plausible claim on which relief may be granted. (Dkt. No. 16.) That same day, the Court 

received plaintiff’s “demand [for] attorney representation[.]” (Dkt. No. 17.) On May 15, 2019, 

having dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, and there being no right to counsel in a civil matter, the 

Court denied plaintiff’s request for representation. (Dkt. No. 18.) 

Also on May 15, 2019, the Court received plaintiff’s “request for reconsideration after 

complaint . . . was dismissed.” (Dkt. No. 19.) Therein, plaintiff asserts that the above-captioned 

action was “assigned, without permission” to the undersigned and asks that the Court “replace” 

this action and “re-apply a fair due – process, complaint court law” and for a “change of judge.” 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also reasserts her request for a pro-bono attorney. (Id.) 

The Court, after providing plaintiff ample opportunity to amend her complaint and to 

object to Judge Kim’s R&R, CONFIRMS herein that it adopts Judge Kim’s R&R in every respect 

and dismisses without prejudice plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Additionally, having 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and there being no right to counsel in a civil matter, the Court 

again DENIES plaintiff’s request for representation by a “pro-bono” attorney. See United States v. 

30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) (“There is normally . . . no constitutional 

right to counsel in a civil case.”). 

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 20 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

This Order terminates Docket Number 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 17, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-00076-YGR Document 20 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 3