Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02462/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02462-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TOBY M. SEMICK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2462-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On August 18, 2016, the court issued a screening order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint 

with leave to amend within 30 days. The order admonished plaintiff that failure to file an 

amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 9. 

On September 15, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s request for a 90-day extension of 

time to file an amended complaint. The court warned plaintiff that filing an amended complaint 

should not require extensive research, should not include legal citations, and need not contain 

unnecessarily detailed factual allegations. The court warned further, that absent good cause, it 

was not inclined to grant further extensions of time. ECF No. 14. 

Case 2:15-cv-02462-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 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 

2

On December 1, 2016, the court granted plaintiff another 45-day extension of time, and 

repeated the warnings contained in the September 15, 2016 order. ECF No. 17. The time for 

acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the 

court’s order.1

 A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or 

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in 

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended 

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 

regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

 1

 Instead, plaintiff filed a ten-page motion for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction. ECF No. 18. The filing does not address plaintiff’s obligation and/or 

ability to file an amended complaint, but does include a request for the appointment of counsel. 

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 

cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 

circumstances” exist, the court must consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, 

the court finds there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 

Case 2:15-cv-02462-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 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 

3

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: February 23, 2017. 

Case 2:15-cv-02462-JAM-EFB Document 19 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3