Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00440/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00440-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSTANCE D. ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE DESIMONI, SR.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-0440 TLN KJN PS

ORDER

On March 5, 2013, plaintiff Constance Adams, proceeding without counsel, filed this 

action alleging a claim of employment discrimination primarily based on race under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. against defendant Mike DeSimoni, Sr. 

(ECF No. 1.)1 

The court conducted a status conference in this matter on August 15, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) 

On August 16, 2013, for the reasons discussed at the status conference, and in light of the court’s 

concerns as to whether service of process has been properly effectuated and whether plaintiff has 

even named the proper defendant in this action, the court ordered plaintiff to file a statement no 

later than August 29, 2013, addressing various topics. The topics included the method(s) by 

which service of process were purportedly accomplished, the involvement of defendant Mike 

 

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:13-cv-00440-TLN-KJN Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 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

DeSimoni with respect to plaintiff’s claims, and plaintiff’s efforts to obtain counsel. (See ECF 

No. 8.) The court noted that, upon receipt and review of plaintiff’s statement, the court would

issue a further order regarding the future progress and scheduling of the case. (Id.) 

Thereafter, on August 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time,

essentially requesting a three-months to one-year stay of the case to allow her to obtain counsel. 

(ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff represented that even though she had made efforts to obtain counsel, 

those efforts had not proven successful at that point. (Id.) On August 29, 2013, the court 

partially granted plaintiff’s motion, noting that: 

Although the court is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by a pro 

se litigant in representing herself in federal court, and encourages 

plaintiff to continue her efforts to obtain counsel, the court declines 

to grant plaintiff a three-month to one-year extension of time. 

Numerous litigants are compelled by financial or other 

circumstances to represent themselves in federal court, and pro se 

status is not in itself a proper basis for staying a case. Moreover, as 

the court noted at the status conference, the court has concerns as to 

whether service of process on the named defendant, Mike 

DeSimoni, Sr., has been properly effectuated and whether plaintiff 

has even named the proper defendant in this action. In light of 

those concerns, the court ordered plaintiff to file the abovementioned statement addressing topics related to how service of 

process was accomplished, Mr. DeSimoni’s involvement with

respect to plaintiff’s claims, etc. These topics primarily concern 

facts that should be in plaintiff’s possession and do not require 

complex legal arguments. 

If plaintiff retains counsel and counsel enters an appearance in this 

case, the court would certainly be willing to entertain a request for 

extension of time filed by counsel to enable him or her to properly 

evaluate the case. However, at this time, there does not appear to 

be any immediate prospect of plaintiff retaining counsel, and there 

are no proper grounds to stay the case or grant a significant 

extension of time. 

Therefore, plaintiff will be required to file the statement in response 

to the court’s prior August 16, 2013 order no later than September 

12, 2013. If plaintiff feels that she is unable to prosecute the case 

without counsel at this time, she may alternatively file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

 

(ECF No. 11.)

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-00440-TLN-KJN Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 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

Subsequently, on September 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a statement addressing, at least in 

part, some of the topics outlined in the court’s August 16, 2013 order. (ECF No. 12.)2 In that 

statement, plaintiff also represented that “the most recent attorney I have spoken to within the last 

48 hours stated to me personally by our brief phone conversation that he would be willing to 

accept my personal case but he needs more time only if the court with [sic] grant it. (I have his 

name and law firm phone # on hand) but once again his law firm is not willing to deal with me 

unless an extension is fully granted.” (Id.)

In light of plaintiff’s present representation that she has an immediate prospect of 

retaining counsel, the court grants plaintiff a final extension of fourteen (14) days for her retained

attorney to enter an appearance in this action. Along with filing a notice of appearance on 

plaintiff’s behalf, the attorney may request a further extension of time to allow the attorney to 

familiarize himself or herself with the case, determine whether and how the complaint should be 

amended, etc. The court will be inclined to grant such a request, assuming that a reasonable 

period of time is requested. 

Alternatively, plaintiff shall file a statement within fourteen (14) days advising the court 

that she was unable to retain counsel. Upon the filing of such a notice, the court will issue a 

further order regarding the progress and scheduling of the case. Plaintiff is advised that the court 

is strongly disinclined to grant any further extensions of time, except as noted above.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall have a final extension of fourteen (14) days from the date of service of 

this order for her retained attorney to enter an appearance in this action. Along with 

filing a notice of appearance on plaintiff’s behalf, the attorney may request a further, 

 

2 Although plaintiff filed her statement one day after the September 12, 2013 deadline, the court 

exercises its discretion to consider that statement. Plaintiff attached a note from a court security 

officer noting that plaintiff attempted to file her statement on September 12, 2013 at around 4:07 

p.m., but that the Clerk’s Office was closed at that time. (ECF No. 12.) Therefore, it appears that

plaintiff at least made some effort to comply with the court’s deadline. However, plaintiff is 

admonished to familiarize herself with the office hours of the Clerk of Court, and cautioned that 

future failure to strictly comply with court deadlines and procedures may result in the imposition 

of appropriate sanctions. 

Case 2:13-cv-00440-TLN-KJN Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 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

appropriate extension of time in accordance with this order.

2. Alternatively, plaintiff shall file a statement within fourteen (14) days of this order

advising the court that she was unable to retain counsel. Upon the filing of such a 

statement, the court will issue a further order regarding the progress and scheduling of 

the case.

3. Failure to timely file a notice of appearance by counsel, or a statement that no counsel 

was retained, by the required deadline may result in imposition of sanctions, including 

a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-00440-TLN-KJN Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 4 of 4