Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01662/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01662-13/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

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.D. BITER, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG-PC

 

ORDER DISCHARING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF 

COPY OF SERVICE DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 71)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael J. Sullivan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2016, the Court issued 

an order finding that service of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was appropriate and 

instructed Plaintiff to complete and submit service documents within 30 days. (ECF No. 70.) 

Plaintiff failed to submit the required service documents and the Court issued an order to show 

cause why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action. 

(ECF No. 71.) 

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, explaining 

that he still intended to pursue his action but that he had not read the Court’s order directing 

him to fill out and submit service documents and now cannot find those documents in his 

possession. He also renews his request for appointment of counsel, a request that was 

previously denied on April 14, 2014. (ECF No. 43.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG Document 73 Filed 10/18/16 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

As explained in its previous order, the Court does not find that this case presents the 

required exceptional circumstances to justify appointment of counsel. Rand v. Rowland, 113 

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Nor have the circumstances in this case changed substantially 

since the Court previously declined to appoint counsel. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of 

counsel is DENIED.

The Court notes that this case has been pending since June 28, 2012 and that much of 

the delay appears to stem from Plaintiff’s actions. After his first amended complaint was 

dismissed with leave to amend, for example, Plaintiff filed no fewer than six separate requests 

for extension of time to prepare the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 32, 34, 38, 49, 53, 

55.) After the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the action 

proceed only against defendants Chen, Patel, and Marchiano, Plaintiff requested three separate 

extensions of time to file objections. (ECF Nos. 61, 63, 64.) And even after those extensions, 

Plaintiff required an additional extension of time because he failed to file objections that

conformed to the Court’s Local Rules. (ECF No. 67.) The case was further delayed after 

Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of several of the Court’s orders, resulting in an order from 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirming the Court’s decision. (ECF No. 50.)

While the Court will provide Plaintiff another opportunity to submit the required service 

documents, Plaintiff is advised that any further attempts to delay this action will be viewed with 

great disfavor and may result in sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of his case. 

Plaintiff is further warned that he must review all Court orders carefully; even if Plaintiff is pro 

se, he is not excused from any deadlines or instructions merely because he did not read an 

order.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG Document 73 Filed 10/18/16 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

The Order to Show Cause, dated October 4, 2016 (ECF No. 71), is DISCHARGED. 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s Order, dated 

August 16, 2016 (ECF No. 70), as well as any attachments listed therein. Plaintiff shall submit 

the service documents required by the August 16, 2016 Order no later than November 18, 

2016. Any further failures to comply with court orders may result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG Document 73 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3