(PC) Paul E. Duran v. Longoria ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL EDWARD DURAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-0289-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. (Doc. 27) 14 LONGORIA, CASE, E. PARKS, M. GAMBOA, W. SINKOVICH, 15 Defendants. 16 17 The Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff 18 proceed only on his First Amendment free exercise of religion claim against Defendant Longoria 19 and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff filed objections on 20 April 5, 2023. (Doc. No. 29.) Also within Plaintiff objections was a request for the appointment 21 of counsel. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff requests counsel because “he is not a lawyer and to grant him an 22 attorney by the court to help him with this instant complaint.” (Id.) 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 24 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 25 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff 26 does not object to the findings allowing his First Amendment claim to proceed. Regarding the 27 recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s other claims, brought pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth 28 Amendments and for supervisory liability, Plaintiff’s arguments do not meaningfully call into 1 | question the reasoning provided in the findings and recommendations. 2 Furthermore, Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied. Plaintiff has not 3 | met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 4 | 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff is not entitled to counsel purely because of 5 | his status as a pro se litigant and is only facing normal challenges that are faced by other pro se 6 | litigants which does not warrant appointment of counsel. Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610, 7 | 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because the plaintiff's “circumstances were 8 || not exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants.”). Thus, 9 | the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The findings and recommendation, filed on March 21, 2023, (Doc. 27) are ADOPTED 11 | IN FULL. 12 2. Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel which is incorporated in his objections 13 | (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ April 14, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28