Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01405-16/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG (PC)

 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION TO 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF NO. 58)

Dale Dustin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on June 25, 2014. (ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 14, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 50). Plaintiff filed 

objections to the Findings and Recommendations on October 31, 2016. (ECF No. 54). Over 

Plaintiff’s objection, on November 2, 2016, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Grosjean’s 

findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 56).

Plaintiff has already objected, and his objection was taken into consideration when the 

Court adopted Magistrate Judge Grosjean’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff did not 

ask for, and was not given, leave to file a supplemental objection. However, even if the Court 

were to consider Plaintiff’s supplemental objection, it would not change the Court’s ruling. 

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Once again, Plaintiff attempts to explain why he should not have to follow the page limit he 

was given. Plaintiff also requests that the Court consider this supplemental objection and his 

objection as one objection. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint an attorney.

Plaintiff’s supplemental objection is overruled. As laid out in detail in the Court’s order 

adopting Magistrate Judge Grosjean’s findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has failed to 

follow court orders in this case, failed to prosecute this case, and has a history of failing to 

prosecute cases and failing to follow court orders. 

Further, the Court will not appoint counsel. The Court has denied numerous requests 

for the appointment of counsel already (ECF Nos. 12, 23, 27, 31, 37, & 49), and will not order 

one appointed now, after the case has already been dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s supplemental objection is 

OVERRULED.

IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01405-LJO-EPG Document 59 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2