Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02015/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CHRIS HONEYCUTT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-cv-02015-GPC-NLS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND;

(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM,

OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION

FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE

STATEMENT;

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

[Doc. Nos. 8, 9 & 11]

vs.

LA-MESA COUNSELING-DVTP; MARK

GUYNN

Defendants.

On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff Chris Honeycutt, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

a complaint against defendants La Mesa Counseling-DVTP and Mark Guynn, (Defendants) alleging

a violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, assault, libel, slander and medical malpractice. 

On September 6, 2012 Defendants were served with the complaint. On September 11, 2012, Plaintiff

requested the Court for leave to amend the complaint to add other civil rights violations. On

September 26, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for a more

definite statement. On October 29, 2012, filed a motion to appoint counsel. Based on the reasoning

- 1 - 12-cv-02015-GPL-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02015-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 11/15/12 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

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint, DENIES Defendants’

motion to dismiss, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.

Discussion

I.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amended and supplemental pleadings. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] partymay

amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . . 21 days after serving it.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to add new causes of action within the 21 day

period required by Rule 15. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

the complaint.

II.

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, 

or Alternatively Motion for a More Definite Statement

Since the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint will replace and supercede his original complaint. Defendants’ motion is moot

because it onlyaddresses the original complaint. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion

to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

III.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff originally filed a motion to appoint counsel on August 14, 2012. The motion was

denied on August 15, 2012. Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel again on October 29, 2012. 

Since this is a second filing of a previously denied motion, the Court construes his request as a motion

for reconsideration. 

A motion for reconsideration is “appropriate if the district court is provided with (1) newly

discovered evidence; (2) clear error or manifest injustice, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

- 2 - 12-cv-02015-GPL-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02015-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 11/15/12 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

Cir. 1993). In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must

include an affidavit or certified statement of a party or attorney “setting forth the material facts and

circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what judge the

application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new and

different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown upon

such prior application.” Local Civ. R. 7.1(i)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with newly discovered evidence, has not

demonstrated clear error or manifest injustice, and has not indicated that there has been an intervening

change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at 163. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.

Conclusion

Forthe foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion forleave to amend complaint. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than forty five (45) days from the date of this Order. 

Plaintiff should note that all claims alleged in the original complaint that are not asserted in the

amended complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiytah, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim

as moot. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2012

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12-cv-02015-GPL-NLS

Case 3:12-cv-02015-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 3