(PC) Vis v. Stevenson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER VIS, No. 2:20-cv-0987 JAM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STEVENSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On screening plaintiff’s complaint, this court found plaintiff 19 stated no claims cognizable under § 1983. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended 20 complaint. (See ECF No. 4.) Since then, plaintiff has filed three documents with this court. In 21 the first document, plaintiff appears to be seeking this court’s intervention in decisions made to 22 medicate him and finding him incompetent. (ECF No. 6.) Second, plaintiff again complains 23 about these decisions and states that he will amend his complaint to allege human trafficking. 24 (ECF No. 7.) In the third filing, plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 8.) 25 MOTION TO INTERVENE 26 As best this court can discern from plaintiff’s filings, plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who 27 has been determined to be incompetent by a state superior court pursuant to California Penal 28 Code § 1370. Plaintiff was originally detained at the Sacramento County Mail Jail and is now 1 detained at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (“RCCC”). He states that he began 2 participating in the Jail Based Competency Treatment (“JBCT”) program there on March 23, 3 2020. Plaintiff alleges that he will be transferred to Napa State Hospital for “more competency 4 training.” 5 Plaintiff also alleges that he is being involuntarily medicated. Involuntary medication 6 requires a state court order. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 2603 (non-emergency, involuntary 7 medication of jail inmate requires determination by superior court judge or court-appointed 8 referee); § 1370 (inmate found incompetent may be involuntarily medicated upon order of 9 administrative law judge). Based on plaintiff’s filings, it appears that plaintiff’s involuntary 10 medication is the result of a state court order. 11 Both the determination of plaintiff’s incompetency and the determination to involuntarily 12 medicate him were made by state courts. This court may not intervene in those state court 13 proceedings. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that lower federal courts are without subject 14 matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions. State court litigants may therefore only obtain 15 federal review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United 16 States. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); 17 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies 18 even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest state court, see Worldwide Church 19 of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986), and when federal constitutional issues 20 are at stake, see Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds as 21 stated in Amphastar Pharm. Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, 856 F.3d 696, 710 (9th Cir. 2017). The 22 Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal district courts “from exercising subject matter 23 jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Kougasian v. 24 TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). 25 Plaintiff’s challenges to orders regarding his competency and medication appear to be de 26 facto appeals from decisions of a state superior or administrative court. The Rooker-Feldman 27 doctrine bars this court from reviewing or vacating the order of the state court. If plaintiff wishes 28 to challenge the state court order, his recourse is to appeal at the appropriate time. See Cal. Penal 1 Code §§ 1370, 2603; Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 5334; see also People v. Christiana, 190 Cal. App. 2 4th 1040, 1045 (2010) (“an order determining the defendant to be incompetent and committing 3 him to a state hospital is appealable as a final judgment in a special proceeding”). Because the 4 federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s challenges to state court orders regarding 5 competency and medication, this court will recommend plaintiff’s “motion to intervene” be 6 denied.1 7 AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 8 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to amend his complaint by his recent filings, this court 9 reminds plaintiff of the instructions provided in the June 25, 2020 screening order. In order to 10 amend his complaint, plaintiff must file a completely new complaint, label it a “first amended 11 complaint,” and use the complaint form provided to plaintiff previously by this court. Plaintiff 12 should carefully review the June 25 order to determine the other requirements for amending his 13 complaint. 14 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 15 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 16 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 17 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the 18 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 19 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 20 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of 21 success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 22 complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 23 Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to 24 most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 25 exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In 26 1 As noted by this court previously, to the extent plaintiff is seeking release from custody, the 27 avenue for relief is the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, plaintiff is warned that he must first seek relief through the state courts by exhausting his state court remedies before he 28 may seek relief under § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). wOAOe 2 EUV YO EVAN ARMM OPI EPO EN IT Mt 1 | the present case, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is raising any claims that this court may 2 | consider. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated any chance of success on the merits of his 3 | claims and appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time. 4 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for 5 || appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied; and 6 IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion to intervene (ECF No. 6) be denied. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 10 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 11 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 | time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 13 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: July 28, 2020 16 U7 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 | DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/vis0987.tro fr 23 24 25 26 27 28