Torfason v. California Forensic Medical Group

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES PAUL ANDREW TORFASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLPATH, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-03458-JSW
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;
GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION
OF TIME
Re: Dkt. Nos. 41, 44, 46
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against
Wellpath, LLC, for providing inadequate medical care while he was in county jail. Wellpath filed
an answer (ECF No. 36), a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 41), and a request for judicial notice (ECF
No. 41-1). The motion to dismiss relies on orders filed in a bankruptcy case from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (ECF Nos. 41, 41-1.) Defendant does not
cite the rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) authorizing its motion. Cf., e.g.,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b),(c). Needless to say, any dispositive motion must cite the federal rule under
which it is proceeding, and apply the relevant standard. In addition, Defendant also noticed a
zoom hearing on the motion, in contravention of the numerous orders of service stating that no
hearing will be held on a dispositive motion. (See, e.g., ECF No. 29 at 2:10-11.) Accordingly, the
motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendant may file a new dispositive motion, including a new
motion to dismiss, provided any such motion cites and applies the federal rule authorizing the
motion. Further, the provisions of the most recent order of service apply to a new dispositive
motion (id. at 1:25-2:24), except for the briefing dates, which are updated below. Defendant shall
thoroughly review and comply with these provisions prior to filing any further motion; failure to
do so may result in sanctions under FRCP 11.
Case 4:22-cv-03458-JSW Document 47 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Northern District of California
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to counsel in a
civil case such as this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). The
decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound
discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff asserts he needs counsel because he does
not know bankruptcy law, does not understand Defendant’s papers, and he has not been able to
find counsel on his own. These are not exceptional circumstances. Defendant has provided
Plaintiff with the relevant bankruptcy orders, and Plaintiff has not explained what laws, if any, he
does not have access to or what is preventing such access. Defendant’s arguments rely on the
orders, are not extraordinarily complex, and do require neither prior knowledge nor a sophisticated
understanding of bankruptcy law. Accordingly, the interests of justice do not require Plaintiff’s
representation by counsel, and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
The deadline for Defendant to file a new dispositive motion is June 19, 2026. Plaintiff’s
opposition is due on or before July 16, 2026. Defendant shall file a reply brief or a notice of
Plaintiff’s non-opposition on or before July 30, 2026.
In light of the above, Defendants’ motion for an extension of time is DENIED as
unnecessary. Defendant’s request for judicial notice of documents filed in other cases is
GRANTED.
This order disposes of docket numbers 41, 44, 46.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2026
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
Case 4:22-cv-03458-JSW Document 47 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 2