Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00839/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00839-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT EMERSON FELIX,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHANIE CLANDENIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO COURT ORDERS AND 

DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY DUE TO 

MEDICAL EMERGENCY AND FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF No. 26)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RE-SERVICE OF COURT 

ORDERS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained 

pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not 

prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

I. Procedural Background

On June 14, 2024, the Court issued a screening order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first 

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 21.) The 

Court expressly warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in 

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 09/17/24 Page 1 of 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

2

a recommendation for dismissal of this action, with prejudice. (Id. at 10.) Following Plaintiff’s 

failure to file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court, on July 31, 2024, 

the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure 

to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 22.) With the 

filing of Plaintiff’s motion for a ninety-day continuance on August 2, 2024, the Court vacated the 

findings and recommendations and granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file an 

amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal were therefore due on or before September 9, 

2024. (ECF No. 25.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 12, 2024 filing titled “Plaintiff’s 

Objections to Court Orders [ECF No. 21, ECF No. 22, ECF No. 241] and Request for Stay Due to 

Medical Emergency.” (ECF No. 26.) The motion is signed and dated August 26, 2024. Plaintiff 

states that he is unable to respond to the Court’s orders because he suffered a massive pulmonary 

embolism and was subsequently sent to an outside medical facility. When Plaintiff was admitted 

back to DSH-Coalinga (“DSH-C”), he was sent to a medical acute care unit (“MA-2”) and was 

unable to have access to his legal work, legal work product, or the legal kiosk to prepare a timely 

response to the Court’s order. Plaintiff was informed he may be kept on MA-2 for up to six 

months for medical observation. Plaintiff has filed complaints with the Patient’s Rights office at 

DSH-C for the denial of his legal work. Plaintiff therefore seeks a medical continuance of six 

months. Plaintiff also requests appointment of legal counsel due to the complexities of the case, 

legitimate and valid claims submitted in the complaint, and in light of Plaintiff’s current critical 

medical conditions. Plaintiff further requests that the Court re-send all prior orders. (Id.)

II. Plaintiff’s Objections

Plaintiff’s filing does not appear to raise any objections to the contents of the particular 

orders referenced. Rather, it appears Plaintiff objects to the deadlines imposed by these orders to 

the extent he will be unable to meet them due to his current medical condition and lack of legal 

1 Plaintiff’s August 2, 2024 motion for a ninety-day continuance was docketed as ECF No. 24. It appears Plaintiff is 

attempting to object to the Court’s August 6, 2024 order vacating the July 31, 2024 findings and recommendations 

and granting Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time. (ECF No. 25.)

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 09/17/24 Page 2 of 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

3

property.

To the extent Plaintiff’s filing is intended as objections to the substance of the Court’s 

orders, those objections are overruled. Plaintiff may express any disagreement with the Court’s 

June 14, 2024 screening order by filing an amended complaint which cures the deficiencies 

identified in Plaintiff’s original complaint. The July 31, 2024 findings and recommendations to 

dismiss this action were vacated by the Court’s August 6, 2024 order, and therefore any 

objections to those findings and recommendations are now moot. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff 

objects to any part of the August 6, 2024 order, Plaintiff has either re-raised the same arguments 

addressed therein (such as in the renewed request for appointment of counsel), or Plaintiff’s 

concerns regarding the deadline set by that order will be alleviated by the further extension of 

time granted by the instant order.

III. Motion for Stay or Medical Continuance

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 

Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the stay bears the burden 

of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

Based on the information presented, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing the 

need to stay this action. Despite his medical condition, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he 

continues to have the ability to file motions, whether through the assistance of other patients or on 

his own, (see ECF Nos. 23, 26), and the ability to communicate with the Court. Further, Plaintiff 

will not be prejudiced by the Court’s denial of his request to stay the action, as the Court finds it 

appropriate to grant a second extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to file his first amended 

complaint. The Court will also grant, in part, Plaintiff’s request for re-service of the Court’s 

orders and will direct the Clerk of the Court to re-serve Plaintiff with the Court’s June 14, 2024 

screening order, which provides Plaintiff with the relevant legal and pleading standards for curing 

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 09/17/24 Page 3 of 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

4

the identified deficiencies in the complaint. As there are no other orders at issue at this time, the 

Court does not find it necessary or appropriate to re-serve Plaintiff with copies of all orders issued 

in this action.2

IV. Request for Appointment of Counsel

With respect to Plaintiff’s renewed request for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff is 

reminded that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 

n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has 

made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. 

This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners and civil detainees suffering from serious 

medical conditions who are proceeding pro se in cases which they find complex and exceptional 

almost daily. These litigants also must litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel and 

limited access to legal resources.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The complaint has been screened and found not to 

2 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to temporary restraining order was received on August 2, 2024. (ECF No. 

23.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the District Judge’s June 10, 2024 order adopting the findings 

and recommendation that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

be denied, (ECF No. 20), those arguments have been received by the Court and will be addressed by separate order 

from the District Judge. No further briefing on that matter is required.

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 09/17/24 Page 4 of 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

5

state a cognizable claim, and no defendants have appeared. There is no indication that the 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on his constitutional claims. Finally, based on a review of the record 

in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims.

V. Extension of Time

As noted above, although Plaintiff’s request for a stay is denied, the Court finds it 

appropriate to grant Plaintiff a second extension of time to file a first amended complaint or a 

notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court finds that an extension of sixty days, rather than a stay 

of six months, is appropriate under the circumstances. In light of Plaintiff’s medical condition 

and current lack of access to his legal property, Plaintiff is reminded that he may seek further 

extensions of time. Any future requests for extension of time should be supported by good cause.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise 

a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages, exclusive of exhibits.

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220.

VI. Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objections to court orders, (ECF No. 26), are OVERRULED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay and renewed request for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 26), 

are DENIED, without prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s request for re-service of court orders, (ECF No. 26), is GRANTED IN PART;

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 09/17/24 Page 5 of 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

6

4. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff:

a. A complaint form; and

b. A copy of the June 14, 2024 screening order, (ECF No. 21);

5. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s June 14, 2024

screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal);

6. Any amended complaint shall be limited to 25 pages in length, excluding exhibits; and

7. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure 

to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00839-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 09/17/24 Page 6 of 6