Bennett v. Prop. 47 Public Defenders Deaprtment

Background

David Bennett, who was on state parole when he filed the case, brought this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued the Prop. 47 Public Defender, public defenders Lara Wallem and Maried O’Keefe, and the Sixth District Appellate Program. The court had previously dismissed his complaint with permission to amend. After Bennett did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the court dismissed the action and entered judgment.

Bennett then filed a motion seeking an extension of time, reconsideration, a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order based on COVID-19-related conditions at Butte County Jail, and appointment of counsel. He stated that he had been arrested and placed in the jail and argued that the earlier order should have been sent to his updated address.

Reconsideration and Extension

The court granted reconsideration and assumed, in the interest of justice, that a clerical error had delayed Bennett’s receipt of the earlier dismissal order. It vacated the judgment, reopened the action, and granted Bennett’s request for more time to amend his complaint.

The court ordered Bennett to file an amended complaint using the court’s form within 28 days. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number specified in the order and include “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. The court warned that failing to file a proper amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice.

Emergency Relief

The court denied Bennett’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. It held that his requested relief concerning Butte County Jail involved new claims against new defendants and was unrelated to the existing damages claim concerning an allegedly unconstitutional conviction. The court stated that Bennett would need to bring those new claims in a separate action and would be subject to the filing fees for that action.

The court also noted that the existing damages claim might be barred by the rule recognized in Heck v. Humphrey and that Bennett would need to show that the challenged conviction had been invalidated and name the proper defendant. The court did not decide the merits of that claim in this order.

Electronic Filing

Because Bennett was then in custody, the court revoked his electronic-filing status. The clerk was directed to remove the electronic-filing designation and serve Bennett paper copies of filings in the case.

Appointment of Counsel and Guardian ad Litem

The court denied Bennett’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for appointment in a civil case. The court found that Bennett had demonstrated an ability to explain his claims despite his reported mental-health issues and that the issues were not particularly complex.

The court also considered whether to appoint a guardian ad litem, a person appointed to protect the interests of a minor or incompetent litigant. It found that Bennett had submitted no evidence that he was incompetent, such as a statement from a mental-health professional or other verifiable evidence. His assertion that he was undergoing mental-health proceedings was not enough to create a substantial question about his competence, so the court found no duty to investigate further and did not appoint a guardian ad litem.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion for reconsideration, vacated the judgment, reopened the action, and granted an extension of time to file an amended complaint. She denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, revoked Bennett’s electronic-filing status, and denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The order itself did not decide whether Bennett’s underlying civil-rights claim was valid.