(PC) Godinez v. Kernan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL GODINEZ, Case No. 2:18-cv-02921-TLN-JDP (HC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 15 Defendants. ECF No. 75 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief and to appoint counsel, ECF No. 75, arguing that his 18 health and circumstances of incarceration require appointment of counsel. In the alternative, he 19 requests that, pending his transfer to the San Diego County Jail, an injunction be granted ordering 20 that he be (1) housed in the jail’s “central” facility and (2) given unimpeded access to the law 21 library there. Id. at 2. 22 As for appointment of counsel, plaintiff has thus far shown an ability to effectively litigate 23 his claims. And while I am not unsympathetic to plaintiff’s health issues, many prisoners in 24 similar situations have been denied appointment of counsel. As a practical matter, counsel in 25 prisoner cases is difficult to obtain and, as such, I will seek counsel only when I am persuaded 26 that representation is essential. I will deny plaintiff’s request. 27 I will also deny plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. At the time of this 28 motion’s filing, he has not been transferred to the San Diego County Jail and any issues with law 1 | library access at that institution are, at this point, hypothetical. See Summers v. Earth Island 2 | Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is 3 | under threat of suffering “injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be 4 | actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged 5 | action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or 6 | redress the injury.”). Plaintiff may renew his motion for injunctive relief if and when he 7 | encounters law library access problems at the San Diego County Jail. 8 Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 75, is DENIED. 9 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, 10 | ECF No. 75, be DENIED. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 13 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 16 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 17 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 18 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 19 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ April 25, 2023 q——— 23 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28