Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00414/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00414-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

KYLE JAMES,

CDCR #BB-1457,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS 

SERVICE AGENTS, K. LANEY; 

BROWN; JOHN BUCKLEY; JOHN 

DOES; UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA. UNITED STATES 

MARSHALS SERVICE ,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

ORDER

Kyle James (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at Corcoran 

State Prison located in Corcoran, California, initially filed this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural Background

On August 08, 2017, the Court dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 

denied his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 18). The Court 

granted Plaintiff 45 days in which to file an Amended Complaint that cured these pleading

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 27 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

deficiencies. (Id. at 7-8, see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

(noting that leave to amend should be granted when complaint is dismissed sua sponte 

under § 1915 “if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.”).) 

The record reflects that Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint or a motion for 

an extension of time in which to file an Amended Complaint within this time period. See

Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff 

eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by

indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 

41(b) dismissal.”). On October 16, 2017, the Court issued an Order dismissing the entire 

action for the reasons set forth in the August 8, 2017 Order and for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 19 at 2.) The matter was closed and judgment 

was entered. (ECF No. 20.)

Plaintiff has now filed a document titled “Informal Notice to Judge William Hayes 

and Request for Judicial Assistance” which the Court liberally construes as a motion for 

reconsideration of the October 16, 2017 Order. (ECF No. 22.) In addition, Plaintiff has 

filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 24.)

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff asserts that he is “not demanding punitive or nominal damages (or any 

damages at all) but instead is seeking a “declaration of truth and an apology written from 

the United States Marshals Service.” (ECF No. 22 at 2.) He further contends that “some 

venue of writ or hearing or counsel must surely exist to address this type of issue.” (Id.)

Plaintiff also states “[i]f the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time he will surely 

continue his research and hard work searching for the answers to the unknown legal issues 

in stating a claim.” (Id. at 1.)

A motion requesting reconsideration of a matter previously decided may be 

construed as a motion to alter an order pursuant to Rule 60(b). See In re Arrowhead Estates 

Dev. Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration 

where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 27 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have 

been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment 

is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. FED. R.

CIV. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion contains grounds justifying relief under 

Rule 60(b). The Court will set aside the judgment entered on October 18, 2017 and vacate 

the Order dismissing the action without further leave to amend. The Court will permit 

Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint. However, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

request that this Court “treat this complaint as one judicially noticed as a different venue 

than Bivens or [Federal Torts Claim Act].” (ECF No. 22 at 2.) It appears that Plaintiff is 

seeking legal advice from this Court by asking the Court to determine which legal theory 

Plaintiff should use to proceed in this matter. The Court cannot provide Plaintiff with legal 

advice. 

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff requests “temporary assistance of appointed counsel just for the purpose of 

stating a claim.” (ECF No. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff acknowledges that he has filed “multiple § 

1983 cases” that are “with merit and supported by the evidence.” (Id. at 2.) All complaints

submitted by any pro se litigant, no matter how “inartfully pleaded” are held to “less 

stringent standards that those drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007). There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case and nothing in Plaintiff’s 

latest filings suggest the Court should exercise its limited discretion to request than an 

attorney represent him pro bono pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Agyeman v. Corr. 

Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court “may request an attorney to 

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Only “exceptional 

circumstances” support such a discretionary appointment. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Exceptional circumstances exist where there is cumulative showing of both a likelihood of 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 27 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

success on the merits and a demonstrated inability of the pro se litigant to articulate his 

claims in light of their legal complexity. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. 

To date, Plaintiff has filed six § 1983 complaints in this Court. All of these matters, 

including this case, contain factual allegations, legal arguments and exhibits in support.

These pleadings demonstrate that while Plaintiff may not be formally trained in law, he has 

nevertheless shown he is fully capable of legibly articulating the facts and circumstances 

relevant to his claims, which are not legally “complex.” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. 

Plaintiff’s original Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and Plaintiff has 

not yet filed any amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown he is likely to 

succeed on the merits at this stage in the proceedings. Id.; see also Cano v. Taylor, 1218 

(9th Cir. 2014). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24) must be 

DENIED.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court:

(1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24);

(2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief 

from Judgment; 

(3) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to set aside the Judgment entered on October 

18, 2017 (ECF No. 20) and vacate the Order dismissing the action without further leave to 

amend on October 16, 2017 (ECF No. 19); 

(4) GRANTS Plaintiff sixty (60) days to file a First Amended Complaint which 

cures all the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s August 8, 2017 Order. 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that should he choose to file a First Amended Complaint, 

it must be complete by itself, comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and that 

any claim not re-alleged will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach 

Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n 

amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 27 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

(9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged 

in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

If Plaintiff files a First Amended Complaint that still fails to state a claim, his case 

may be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 

1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 

complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the 

entire action.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 27 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5