(PC) Martinez v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, No. 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 24) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 6, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) be dismissed due to its failure to 23 state a claim. (Doc. No. 24.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff does not 24 plausibly allege that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in 25 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 4–6.) The findings and recommendations contained 26 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (14) days after service. (Id. 27 at 6.) On February 24, 2020, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 25.) 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's 3 | objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 | by proper analysis. 5 In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s finding 6 | that the SAC does not allege a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to 7 | his serious medical needs. (See Doc. No. 25.) Instead, plaintiff argues that his inability to state 8 | such a claim is the result of his representing himself and not having an understanding of the law. 9 | Ud. at 1.) Plaintiff therefore reiterates his request for the appointment of counsel. (d.; see also 10 | Doc. No. 22.) However, the court has twice provided plaintiff with the legal standards applicable 11 | to the claims he is attempting to allege in this action. (See Doc. Nos. 13, 18.) Despite this 12 | guidance, plaintiff’s allegations set forth in the SAC fail to state cognizable claims against any 13 | defendant. With respect to plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel, “[a] pro se litigant has 14 | no right to counsel in a civil action.” Lear v. Akanno, No. 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-JDP, 2018 WL 15 3203102, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2018) (citing Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 16 | 2009)). No circumstances presented by plaintiff support the appointment of pro bono counsel 17 | here, even if such counsel willing to so serve could be identified. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 6, 2020 (Doc. No. 24) are 20 adopted in full; 21 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim; 22 3. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 22) is denied; and 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter. 24 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ *5 Dated: _ March 30, 2020 i sl, A i a 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28