(PC) Brownlee v. Lynch ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00261-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 14 JEFFREY W. LYNCH, et al., ECF Nos. 2 & 5 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 17 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION OF 18 DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS OR PARTIES; 19 (2) FILE AN AMENDED 20 COMPLAINT 21 ECF No. 1 22 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 23 24 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 case against ten defendants and asserts 26 numerous unrelated claims. ECF No. 1. For the reasons stated below, the complaint cannot 27 proceed in its present form. I will deny plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and grant 28 his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2 & 5. 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 Plaintiff’s twenty-eight-page complaint is deficient because it contains eight unrelated 27 claims. For instance, his first claim alleges that defendants interfered with his legal mail. ECF 28 No. 1 at 5-6. His second claim bears no relation to the first and alleges that defendants violated 1 his Eighth Amendment rights by falsely imprisoning him with an unwarranted rules violation 2 report. Id. at 6-8. By way of final example, plaintiff’s seventh claim implicates a loss of personal 3 property during a cell transfer. Id. at 19-20. Unrelated claims against more than one defendant 4 belong in separate actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 5 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against 6 Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). 7 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that contains only related claims. He is advised 8 that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 9 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will 10 need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 11 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 12 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each 13 claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 14 should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 15 Additionally, I will deny plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not 16 have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 17 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. 18 See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 19 The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The 20 court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d 21 at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in 22 exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the district court 23 must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to 24 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 25 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 26 I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 27 present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, 28 plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, 1 | plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 2, is denied without prejudice. I may revisit this 2 | issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. If plaintiff later 3 | renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances that 4 | he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED. 7 2. Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2, is DENIED without 8 prejudice. 9 3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 10 | complaint. If he does not, I will issue findings and recommendations narrowing the complaint to 11 | related claims. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ April 5, 2023 q-—— 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28