govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-4_22-cv-03458-6

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 
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. 
 
 

 
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. 

 
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 

Passage view · GavelSight