Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01208-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDRA FERREIRA DA SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN KEVIN ROSS, et al.,,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01208-KJM-CKD PS

ORDER

On October 28, 2021, the undersigned filed an order and findings and recommendations in 

this case. (ECF No. 13.) Specifically, the undersigned found service appropriate for defendant 

Officer Heidi Morgan on plaintiff’s claim of excessive force and ordered the Clerk of the Court to

issue process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. In order to effectuate service of 

process on Officer Morgan, plaintiff was directed to return the necessary documents to the US 

Marshal within 30 days.

By findings and recommendations issued concurrently, the undersigned recommended this

court dismiss all other claims and defendants from this case. These findings and 

recommendations contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were 

to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff was also notified that failure to file objections within the 

specified time could waive the right to appeal any order of the court adopting the findings and 

recommendations.

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 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

2

On November 4, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time and requested the 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 16.) On November 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of 

interlocutory appeal which has been processed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit. (ECF Nos. 17-19.) On November 16, 2021, plaintiff filed a document in this court in 

which she requested permission to electronically file documents. (ECF No. 20.)

Effect of the Interlocutory Appeal on the Pending Motions

The filing of an interlocutory appeal “divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed 

with trial,” Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992), and “over the particular issues 

involved in [the] appeal.” City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 

(9th Cir. 2001). However, the filing of an interlocutory appeal does not divest the trial court of 

jurisdiction over aspects of the case that are not the subject of the appeal. United States v. Pitner, 

307 F.3d 1178, 1183 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, it appears plaintiff is attempting to appeal some or all of the October 28, 2021 order

and findings and recommendations. However, the appeal is bound to be dismissed as premature 

or otherwise procedurally improper. First, findings and recommendations cannot be directly 

appealed; instead the proper course of action if plaintiff disagrees with any of the undersigned’s 

findings and recommendations is to file objections to the findings and recommendations in this 

court and then wait for the district court ruling by the assigned district judge – in this case the 

Honorable Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller – prior to filing an appeal. It further does not 

appear the appeal is properly taken as to the order finding service appropriate for Officer Morgan. 

Under these circumstances, the undersigned considers plaintiff’s pending motions and requests 

which do not involve the subject of a properly filed appeal.

Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time does not specify for what purpose the extension 

of time is requested. The undersigned construes the filing as requesting an extension of time to 

file objections to the October 28, 2021 recommendation to dismiss claims and defendants, and/or

requesting an extension of time to supply the U.S. Marshal with documents needed to effectuate 

service of process. So construed, the request will be granted.

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 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

3

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

It is “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil 

cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). However, under 

“exceptional circumstances,” a court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court

considers both “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to 

articulate [the] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff’s first request for counsel was denied on September 1, 2021. The court has 

extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases and there are no new circumstances 

alleged. Considering the Palmer factors, plaintiff does not meet the burden of demonstrating 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time.

Request to Participate in Electronic Case Filing

Finally, plaintiff has requested to participate in electronic case filing. (ECF No. 20.) 

Generally, “any person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the 

permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” See E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(b)(2). Plaintiff’s 

request for electronic case filing does not provide good cause for deviance from the Local Rule 

applicable to unrepresented litigants. At the current stage of this case, the motion will be denied.

Conclusion

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED to the extent that 

plaintiff has up to and including December 17, 2021 to file objections to the October 28, 2021 

findings and recommendations, and, further the motion for extension of time is GRANTED to the 

extent that a new due date for plaintiff to provide the documents needed to effectuate service of 

process on Officer Morgan as set forth in the October 28, 2021 order will be provided following 

the dismissal or conclusion of the pending interlocutory appeal; and

////

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 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

4

3. Plaintiff’s request to participate in electronic case filing (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.

Dated: November 19, 2021

8.ferreira1208.misc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01208-DJC-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 4