(PC) Barela v. Amador County Jail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 OSCAR BARELA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01732-WBS-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 11 v. DISMISSED 12 AMADOR COUNTY JAIL, ECF Nos. 1 & 7 13 Defendant. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 14 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF 15 COUNSEL 16 ECF No. 7 17 18 19 On October 11, 2022, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it did not state 20 a claim. I granted him an opportunity to amend his complaint, or stand by it, subject to dismissal. 21 Plaintiff has elected to stand by his complaint, which alleges that defendant Amador County Jail 22 deprived him of educational programs. As I explained in my previous screening order, this claim 23 does not state a cause of action. Accordingly, I recommend that this action be dismissed. 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 26 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 27 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff claims that while defendant provides some educational programs, it does not 22 provide every program listed on the jail’s website. ECF No. 1 at 3. As I explained in my last 23 screening order, there is no constitutional right to education in prison. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 24 U.S. 337, 348 (1981) (finding that deprivation of rehabilitation and educational programs does 25 not violate the Eighth Amendment); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting 26 that there is no right to a vocational course for rehabilitation). 27 Plaintiff also does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see 28 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to 1 | require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 2 | 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 3 | US.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 4 | counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court 5 | will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 6 | circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 7 | [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 8 | legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits, thus the court 10 cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present. 11 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for counsel, ECF No. 7, is 12 | denied without prejudice. 13 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 14 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 15 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 16 | Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the findings and 17 || recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 18 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be captioned “Objections to 19 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings 20 | and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the 21 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 22 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ( q oy — Dated: _ October 19, 2022 Q_-——_ 26 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28