Randy Joe Rocha v. Atlee M. Monroe, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California disregarded the plaintiff’s motion for late filing because the complaint had already been filed and the motion was unclear under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)(B)–(C). The court denied appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances and acknowledged the plaintiff’s notice requesting that the case proceed.

Holdings

1. The court disregarded plaintiff's motion for late filing because it violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)(B)-(C), and because the complaint had already been filed.
2. The court denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel because he did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
3. The court acknowledged the notice, while informing plaintiff that the complaint would be screened in due course.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's motion for a late filing should be considered when the complaint had already been filed and the motion did not clearly identify the relief requested.
2. Whether exceptional circumstances warranted requesting voluntary appointment of counsel for an indigent prisoner proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether the court should acknowledge plaintiff's notice requesting that the case proceed.

Disposition

other