Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00567/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00567-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVORY J. PHILLIPS,

CDCR #F-90996,

Civil No. 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO CLARIFY AND

FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

[ECF Doc. Nos. 44, 46]

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

RENEWED MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF Doc. No. 42]

AND

3) SUA SPONTE GRANTING

PLAINTIFF EXTENSION OF

TIME TO COMPLY WITH

COURT’S ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

vs.

GERALD JANDA; RALPH M. DIAZ;

DANIEL PARAMO; DR. JEFFREY

BEARD; C. LIVSEY; R. LORIOS; C.

OGBUEHI; G. PICKETT; E. SIMON;

LIEUTENANT R. RONALD DAVIS;

SHEILA ANDERSEN; DeLEON;

RODRIGUEZ; PEREZ; NAVARO; and

JOHN AND SALLY DOES 1-30, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Ivory Phillips, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, is proceeding in pro

se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action which he first initiated on

March 11, 2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF Doc. No. 1). 

1 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 7
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

I.

Background

On June 3, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint

(“TAC”) in its entirety based on Plaintiff’s repeated failuresto complywith FED.R.CIV.P.

8, and as frivolous, malicious, and for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See June 3, 2014 Order (ECF Doc. No. 39). Because

Plaintifffailed to follow the Court’s previous directionsregarding necessary amendment

of his Eighth Amendment, free exercise, and access to courts claims, the Court denied

further leave to amend those claims as futile. Id. at 14. To the extent Plaintiff’s TAC

alleged racial discrimination and conspiracy claims the Court had previously dismissed

asfrivolous, the Court found Plaintiff’s attempts to resurrect those claims both frivolous

and malicious, and again denied him leave to amend. Id. at 14-15. 

However, a careful reading of Plaintiff’s TAC included what appeared to be a new

claim of retaliation, arising in July 2013, and not previously alleged in any of Plaintiff’s

prior pleadings. See TAC (ECF Doc. No. 20) at 18-23. Therefore, while the Court found

Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support this newly-alleged retaliation claim,

it granted himleave “to amend this claimonly, and against Defendants Pickett, Espinoza,

Perez, Rodriguez, Navaro, and Ramirez only.” Id. at 15 (emphasis original). 

The Court further directed the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a copy of

its form § 1983 civil rights complaint for his use and convenience, and cautioned that his

Fourth Amendment Complaint must be complete by itself, comply with FED.R.CIV.P. 8,

and “add no additional Defendants or causes of action.” Id. at 16. Finally, the Court

made clear that “should [Plaintiff] fail to file a Fourth Amended Complaint within the

time provided, or file a Fourth Amended Complaint that fail[ed] to state a retaliation

claim or otherwise comply with [its] Order,” it would “enter a final Order of dismissal

of the entire action without prejudice as frivolous, malicious, and for failing to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and

§ 1915A(b).” Id. at 17.

2 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 7
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

II.

Plaintiff’s Responses

Plaintiff failed to file a Fourth Amended Complaint within the time provided. 

Instead, he has since submitted several duplicative motions, miscellaneous requests and

supplemental documents which wholly fail to acknowledge the existence of, or

demonstrate any attempt to comply with, the Court’s June 3, 2014 Order. 

The first, which Plaintiff captions as “Class Action Motion for Leave: Notice of

Motion: Motion to Submit Points and Authorities (“P&A’s”) in Support of, Motion to

Appoint Counsel and or Clerical Support and Memorandum of P&As,” the Court

construes as a renewed Motion for Appointment ofCounsel (ECF Doc. No. 42). Plaintiff

has also filed an “Amended” Motion for Leave to Submit P&As (ECF Doc. No. 46), in

which he appearsto seek permission to supplement his previous Motion for Appointment

of Counsel, as well as at least one supplemental document in support these Motions

(ECF Doc. Nos. 48).

In addition, Plaintiff has filed a “Class Action Motion for Leave: Notice of

Motion; and Request for Clarification of Order on Third Amended Complaint” (ECF

Doc. No. 44), as well as two supplemental documents in support and/or to amend this

Motion (ECF Doc. Nos. 51, 55). In these submissions, Plaintiff expresses confusion as

the status of his case, and claims he did not receive any prior Order of dismissal. See

ECF Doc. No. 44 at 2. Plaintiff asks the Court to clarify “which version of [his]

Complaint is up for screening,” and how much time he has to “amend it for clarity and

compliance.” Id. at 4.

III. 

Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff again seeks the appointment of an attorney “and/or clerical support”

because his case is a “complex” “multi-jurisdictional” “class action,” consisting of

“approximately six (6) causes.” See Pl.’s Mot. (ECF Doc. No. 42) at 8. 

/ / /

3 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 3 of 7
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

As the Court has previously noted, the Constitution provides no right to

appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S.

18, 25 (1981). And, while 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides district courts with discretion

to appoint counsel for indigent persons, the exercise of this discretion is limited to cases

which present “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the

‘likelihood ofsuccess on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion for appointment of counsel because

he failed to show any exceptional circumstances required the exercise of its discretion

under § 1915(e)(1). See June 3, 2014 Order at 4-5 (citing LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d

622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017). Nothing offered in support of his

current Motion or any of its supplements presents the Court with any justification to

change that conclusion. And while Plaintiff continues to argue that appointment of

counsel is warranted due to the complexity of his case, and his limited accessto adequate

law library facilities, see Pl.’s Mot. (ECF Doc. No. 42) at 8, his renewed requeststill fails

to show either that the sole retaliation claim he has been granted leave to amend is

unduly complex, or that he is unable to articulate the factual basis for that claim,

especially in light of the Court’s June 3, 2014 Order, which clearly delineated the

straightforward legal standards for alleging such a claim. See June 3, 2014 Order at 13-

14; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (“If all that wasrequired to establish successfully

the complexity of the relevant issues [for purposes of appointing counsel under § 1915]

was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases

would involve complex legal issues.”). For these reasons, the Court again DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice (ECF Doc. No. 42).

/ / /

4 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 4 of 7
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

IV.

Motions to Clarify and for Leave to Submit P&As

In his Motion toClarify (ECF Doc. No. 44), his Motion for Leave to Submit P&As

(ECF Doc. No. 46), and in his supplemental filings offered in support (ECF Doc. Nos.

48, 51, 53, 55), Plaintiff expresses confusion as to the status of his case, and claims he

did not receive any previous Order dismissing or rejecting his claims. See Pl.’s Mot.

(ECF Doc. No. 44) at 2-3. And while these documents comprise pages of case citations

and mostly irrelevant legal jargon, they also contain random and disjointed factual

allegations related to the current conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement at RJD. See, e.g.,

Doc. No. 46 at 16-17. None of them can be fairly classified as an attempt to file a proper

Fourth Amended Complaint, however. Instead, Plaintiff alleges he has had

“confidential/legal mail” “pre-ripped open before arrival,” that he has not received mail

“on numerous occasions,” and he asks the Court to clarify “which version of [his]

Complaint is up for screening,” and provide him a “time-frame” in which to amend. Id.

at 3.

While nothing in the Court’s docket indicates its June 3, 2014 Order, or any other

Order issued in this case was ever returned by the U.S. Post Office as undeliverable, the

Notice of Electronic Filing attached to the June 3, 2014 Order demonstrates that it was

“served via U.S. Mail Service” along with a blank civil rights complaint on Plaintiff at

the following address: Ivory J. Phillips, F-90996, RJ Donovan Correctional Facility, PO

Box 799002, San Diego, CA 92179-9002 on 6/3/14 (ECF Doc. No. 39). Plaintiff has not

been transferred from RJD or filed any Notice of Change of Address since he first

initiated this case in March 2013, and it has long been generally presumed that mail

properly addressed to a party at his last known address has been received. See Anderson

v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Under the common law mailbox rule,

proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is

received by the addressee.”) (citing Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193-94 (1884)).

Nevertheless, the Court will take Plaintiff at his word, and in an abundance of caution

5 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 5 of 7
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

in light of his pro se status, assume that he did not receive either a copy of the Court’s

June 3, 2014 Order, or a blank copy of the Court’s form § 1983 Complaint for him to use

to amend. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.

1988) (noting that where a plaintiff appears in propria persona in a civil rights case, the

Court must construe the pleadingsliberally and afford plaintiff any benefit of the doubt).

For these reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motions to Clarify and for

Leave to Submit P&As(ECF Doc. Nos. 44, 46), and further GRANT himadditional time

and one final opportunity in which to file a Fourth Amended Complaint which complies

with the Court’s June 3, 2014 Order. 

V.

Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s RenewedMotion for Appointment ofCounsel (ECF Doc. No. 42)

is DENIED.

2) Plaintiff’s Motions to Clarify and for Leave to Submit Points & Authorities

(ECF Doc. Nos. 44, 46) are GRANTED.

3) Plaintiff isfurther GRANTED forty-five (45) days leave from the date this

Order is entered into the Court’s docket in which to file a Fourth Amended Complaint

which cures all deficiencies of pleading described in the Court’s June 3, 2014 Order

(ECF Doc. No. 39) as to his retaliation claims against Defendants Pickett, Espinoza,

Perez, Rodriguez, Navaro and Rodriguez only. 

4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff another copy of the

Court’s June 3, 2014 Order (ECF Doc. No. 39), as well as the Court’s form § 1983 civil

rights complaint for his use in amending. Plaintiff must title his pleading as his Fourth

Amended Complaint, include Civil Case No. 13cv0567 BTM (JLB) in its caption,

complete it without reference to any of his previous pleadings, add no additional

Defendants or causes of action, and comply with FED.R.CIV.P. 8, S.D. CAL. CIVLR 8.2

(providing that civil rights actions filed by prisoners must be submitted on the form

6 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 6 of 7
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

supplied by the court, must be signed by the plaintiff, and may not include more than

fifteen (15) attached additional pages), and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. 

5) Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that should he fail to file a Fourth Amended

Complaint within the time provided, or file a Fourth Amended Complaint that fails to

state a retaliation claim or otherwise comply with the Court’s June 3, 2014 Order, the

Court will enter a final Order of dismissal of the entire action without prejudice and

without any further leave to amend asfrivolous, malicious, and for failing to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b).

DATED: November 12, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

7 13cv0567 BTM (JLB)

Case 3:13-cv-00567-BTM-JLB Document 58 Filed 11/12/14 Page 7 of 7