Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814-12/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG (PR) 

ORDER REFERRING MATTER TO 

FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT AND 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 99, 101, 104, 105

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the California Healthcare Facility, filed 

this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional and state tort violations 

arising out of a 2012 surgery during which he had rods installed in his back. The surgery was 

performed by defendant UCSF Medical Doctor Shane Burch (“Burch”), and the rods were 

manufactured by a company acquired by defendant Medtronic, Inc (“Medtronic”). In an order 

filed March 2, 2015, the Court screened the complaint (dkt. no. 1), and determined that it stated 

the following cognizable claims: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against 

defendant Burch; (2) a supplemental state law negligence claim against defendant Burch; and 

(3) supplemental state law product liability claims against defendant Medtronic. See Dkt. No. 18.

On April 8, 2016, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for early 

settlement proceedings. On September 26, 2016 Judge Vadas reported that the case did not settle. 

On October 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion appearing to contain three requests. First, plaintiff 

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 106 Filed 11/29/16 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 California

requests that the Court declare the Second Amended Complaint the “operative” complaint. 

Second, plaintiff requests sanctions against defendant Burch. Third, plaintiff requests that the 

Court appoint pro bono legal counsel and an expert witness. On November 3, 2016, defendant 

Medtronic filed its response to plaintiff’s motion along with an ex parte notice of violations of the 

protective order, containing references to confidential settlement communications that plaintiff 

included in publicly filed documents.

1

 Defendant Burch filed a separate response on November 

17, 2016. On November 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply.2

Upon review of the record and the briefing, the Court has determined that the appointment 

of pro bono counsel would benefit the Court’s review. Medtronic agrees that appointing counsel 

would help overcome challenges related to document production, depositions, and compliance 

with the protective order. See Dkt. No. 100 at 10.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is 

GRANTED, and plaintiff shall be referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project in the manner set forth

below:

1. The Clerk shall forward to the Federal Pro Bono Project: (a) a copy of this order, 

(b) a copy of the docket sheet, (c) a copy of the complaint (dkt. no. 1); and (d) a copy of the 

Court’s March 2, 2015 order (dkt. no. 18).

2. Upon an attorney being located to represent plaintiff, that attorney shall be 

appointed as counsel for plaintiff in this matter until further order of the Court. 

3. All proceedings in this action are stayed until an attorney is appointed to represent 

plaintiff. Once such attorney is appointed, the Court will schedule a case management conference.

4. Plaintiff’s remaining requests are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing through 

counsel, once counsel is appointed. Finally, the Court notes that there is no Second Amended 

 

1 Good cause appearing, and no opposition being filed thereto, Medtronic’s administrative motions 

to file under seal its opposition and ex parte notice (dkt. nos. 99, 101) are GRANTED. The Clerk

is directed to file under seal: (1) the portions of Medtronic’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion and 

report summary of the post-settlement conference presented for sealing by Medtronic, and 

(2) Medtronic’s ex parte notice of violations of the protective order.

2 Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his reply (dkt. no. 104), 

is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s November 25, 2016 reply is deemed timely filed.

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 106 Filed 11/29/16 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 California

Complaint on file. If plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, he may move for leave to amend

through counsel, once counsel is appointed.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 97, 99, 101, 104, and 105.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/29/2016

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 106 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3