Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06537/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06537-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVA SCRUGGS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06537-YGR (PR)

ORDER

(1) VACATING MAY 7, 2015 ORDER;

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO: 

(A) LOCATE DEFENDANT CATS, AND 

(B) FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

(3) ADDRESSING HIS OTHER PENDING 

MOTIONS

Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham, currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse and 

Treatment Facility, brings the instant pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stemming from 

alleged constitutional violations that took place while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”) from 2011 through 2012.

The parties are presently before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

(dkt. 65) as well as Plaintiff’s pending motions, including: his motion for leave to file a third 

amended complaint (dkts. 50, 61); his “Motion[s] for Administrative Relief” (dkts. 51, 77); his 

renewed motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. 78); and his motion to compel discovery (dkt. 

82).

To date, Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment, and it is currently overdue. Therefore, the Court will not be able to resolve the pending 

motion for summary judgment. Instead, the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s request for an 

extension of time to file his opposition, and it shall also address his pending motions below.

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Prior to Defendants filing their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff had filed a motion 

entitled, “Motion for Leave to File Proposed 3[r]d Amended Complaint Joinding [sic] Parties 

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Pleadings Claims in Filed Case No. 4:13-cv-5777.”1 Dkt. 50. Plaintiff later filed another motion 

for leave to amend, along with a copy of the proposed third amended complaint. Dkt. 61. 

Initially, Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a third amended 

complaint; however, they have since filed a motion for summary judgment in the instant matter.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend a complaint should 

be “freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Four factors are commonly 

used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to amend. These are: bad faith, undue delay, 

prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 

1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The decision to grant or 

deny a request for leave to amend rests in the discretion of the trial court. See California v. Neville 

Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, the Court finds that granting leave to amend is unwarranted. At this time, the Court 

specifically finds that permitting the proposed amendment would by unduly prejudicial to 

Defendants. Defendants timely filed their motion for summary judgment based on the claims 

which the Court found cognizable in its Order of Service. To allow Plaintiff to pursue improperly 

joined claims based on an entirely different set of circumstances at this late stage of the action 

would undoubtedly be prejudicial, particularly given that the dispositive motion deadline has 

passed. Cf. Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir. 

1986) (affirming denial of motion for leave to amend on the ground that “allowing amendment 

would prejudice the [defendant] because of the necessity for further discovery”). In any event, 

Plaintiff has been able to pursue those claims in his other pending civil rights action. See Case 

No. C 13-5777 YGR (PR).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to file a third amended complaint is 

DENIED. 

 

1

In Case No. C 13-5777 YGR (PR), Plaintiff had filed a pro se civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he sought monetary damages based on alleged injuries caused 

by SVSP employees when he was incarcerated there from 2012 through 2013. To date, there is 

also a pending motion for summary judgment that has been filed by Defendants in that case. Dkt. 

34 in Case No. C 13-5777 YGR (PR).

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. RENEWED REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff has filed a renewed request for the appointment of counsel to represent him in this 

action. Dkt. 78. He also requests for an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 77.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may 

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 

18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to 

counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an 

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to 

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on 

a request for counsel under § 1915. See id. 

The Court has denied Plaintiff’s previously-filed motions for appointment of counsel. 

Dkts. 15, 19. At this time, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances entitling Plaintiff to 

court appointed counsel still do not exist. The legal issues are not complex. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. 78.

As mentioned above, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

is presently overdue. Now that the Court has ruled on Plaintiff’s pending motion for leave to 

amend as well as his motion for appointment of counsel, the Court GRANTS his request for an 

extension of time in which to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Dkt. 77. The parties are directed to abide by the briefing schedule outlined below.

III. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

On May 7, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against unserved Defendant M. Cats 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Dkt. 81. In its May 7, 2015 Order, the Court 

explained that all attempts to serve Defendant Cats have been unsuccessful and that Plaintiff had 

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 7
4

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

Northern District of California

failed to provide a current address for Defendant Cats by the April 30, 2015 deadline, stating:

Here, the Clerk of the Court was directed to serve Defendant 

Cats at two different locations, first at Salinas Valley State Prison 

and then at the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. Dkts. 23 at 4, 47 at 2. Both attempts were 

unsuccessful. Dkts. 27, 58. In an Order dated April 7, 2015, the 

Court informed Plaintiff that service had still been ineffective on 

Defendant Cats and granted Plaintiff a final extension of time to 

provide a current address for this Defendant—no later than April 30, 

2015. Dkt. 80. Again, Plaintiff was warned that his failure to do so 

by the new deadline shall result in the dismissal of all claims against 

Defendant Cats. Id. at 2. The April 30, 2015 deadline has passed, 

and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the aforementioned 

required information. 

This action has been pending for over 120 days, and service 

upon Defendant Cats has not been effectuated. Plaintiff has failed to 

show cause why the claims against Defendant Cats should not be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Accordingly, all 

claims against Defendant Cats are DISMISSED without prejudice 

under Rule 4(m).

Dkt. 81 at 2.

Also on May 7, 2015 (but after the aforementioned May 7, 2015 Order had been issued),

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 82. It seems that, as of April 30, 2015 (the date 

he signed the motion to compel), Plaintiff had been attempting to submit discovery requests to 

Defendants’ attorney, Deputy Attorney General Damon Grant McClain, in an effort to obtain a 

current address for Defendant Cats.2 Id. at 1. However, Plaintiff claims that Deputy Attorney 

General McClain has not responded to his discovery requests. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff filed the 

instant motion to compel discovery, in which he asks the Court to issue an order directing 

Defendants’ attorney to provide him with the current address for Defendant Cats.

First, because it is evident that Plaintiff had still been attempting to locate Defendant Cats 

prior to the April 30, 2015 deadline, the Court VACATES its May 7, 2015 Order dismissing all 

claims against Defendant Cats.

 

2

Plaintiff claims that he has also made efforts to obtain the current addresses of

Defendants A. Hedgpeth and F. Mejia. However, the record shows that Defendant Hedgpeth has 

since been served. Dkt. 59. Defendant Mejia, who is a Defendant in Plaintiff’s other pending 

action (Case No. C 13-5777 YGR (PR), has also been served. Dkt. 65 in Case No. C 13-5777 

YGR (PR). Therefore, the Court need not address Plaintiff’s discovery requests relating to those 

Defendants.

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 7
5

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

Northern District of California

Next, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel discovery. It is not an 

effective or appropriate use of the Court’s limited resources for it to oversee all aspects of 

discovery. Thus, before filing a motion to compel, the moving party must first attempt to resolve 

the dispute informally with the opposing party. It is only when the parties are unable to resolve 

the dispute after making a good faith effort to do so should they seek the Court’s intervention. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated, he is not 

required to meet and confer with Defendants in person. Rather, if Plaintiff’s discovery requests 

are denied and he intends to pursue a motion to compel, he need only send a letter to Defendants 

to that effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him the sought-after information. The 

letter should state the specific discovery he seeks, and state the reasons that Plaintiff believes he is 

entitled to such discovery.

Here, there is nothing in the record to show that Plaintiff met and conferred with 

Defendants, nor is there any proof that he sent a letter to Defendants, granting them an additional 

opportunity to provide him the information he sought. For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is DENIED as premature. Dkt. 82.

In an abundance of caution, the Court directs Deputy Attorney General McClain to file a 

status report no later than three (3) days of the date of this Order as to whether he received 

Plaintiff’s discovery request relating to the current address of Defendant Cats and, if so, when a 

response is expected. If not, he shall advise whether Plaintiff made any efforts to meet and confer 

with Defendants prior to filing the motion to compel discovery. 

Finally, the time in which Plaintiff may provide the Court with the required information

necessary to locate Defendant Cats will be extended up to and including June 26, 2015.

IV. MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff’s first “Motion for Administrative Relief” (dkt. 51) is GRANTED. In that 

motion, he requests a copy of his “Reply and Opposition to Defendants[’] Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to 

Dismiss3” (dkt. 49) as well as a copy of his proposed third amended complaint. The Court has 

 

3 Defendants’ motion to dismiss has since been denied without prejudice to refiling it along 

with the motion for summary judgment as to the claims that were not addressed in that motion to 

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Northern District of California

already directed the Clerk to return Plaintiff’s copy of the third amended complaint. The Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his “Reply and Opposition to Defendants[’] Rule 

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss” (dkt. 49), and the Clerk shall also send him a copy of that document.

Plaintiff’s second “Motion for Administrative Relief” (dkt. 77) is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part. In that motion, he requests that the Court rule on the pending motion for leave to 

file a third amended complaint. That request has been granted because the Court has already ruled 

above on his motion for leave to file a third amended complaint by denying it. Plaintiff also 

requests for an extension of time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and 

that request has also been granted above. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court participate in 

coordinating settlement discussions with all Defendants from Plaintiff’s two cases. The Northern 

District of California has established a Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program. Certain prisoner civil 

rights cases may be referred to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. However, in the 

instant matter, the Court finds that a referral is not yet in order because Plaintiff’s claims in both 

cases have not yet survived summary judgment. Thus, after the Court resolves the pending 

motions for summary judgment in both cases, then it will sua sponte consider whether to refer 

them to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for a settlement conference.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to file a third amended complaint is DENIED. 

Dkts. 50, 61. 

2. Plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice. Dkt. 78.

3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to file his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. 77. The time in which Plaintiff 

may file his opposition will be extended up to and including July 14, 2015. Defendants reply to 

the opposition must be filed no later than July 28, 2015. No further extensions of time will be 

 

dismiss. Dkt. 47 at 3. As explained above, Defendants have now filed their motion for summary 

judgment. Dkt. 65.

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

granted in this case absent extraordinary circumstances.

4. The Court VACATES its May 7, 2015 Order dismissing all claims against 

Defendant Cats.

5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (relating to the current address of Defendant 

Cats) is DENIED as premature. Dkt. 82.

6. The Court directs Deputy Attorney General McClain to file a status report no later 

than three (3) days of the date of this Order as directed herein. 

7. The time in which Plaintiff may provide the Court with the required information

necessary to locate Defendant Cats will be extended up to and including June 26, 2015. 

8. Plaintiff’s first “Motion for Administrative Relief” is GRANTED, as explained 

above. Dkt. 51.

9. Plaintiff’s second “Motion for Administrative Relief” is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part, as explained above. Dkt. 77.

10. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a copy of his “Reply and Opposition to Defendants[’] 

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss” (dkt. 49) as well as a copy of his proposed third amended 

complaint (dkt. 61-1), along with his copy of this Order.

11. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 50, 51, 61, 77, 78 and 82.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 28, 2015

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 83 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 7