(PC) Rouser v. Allison ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:21-cv-02206-DAD-CKD (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 23) 16 17 Plaintiff William Rouser is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 14, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s third amended 21 complaint (“TAC”) and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be 22 dismissed, without leave to amend, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon 23 which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 23.) Those findings and recommendations were served 24 on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 25 days from the date of service. (Id. at 4.) On March 27, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the 26 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 24.) Within plaintiff’s objections is a request for the 27 appointment of counsel. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff requests counsel because he is “a mental health 28 patient” and “it is hard for him to litigate.” (Id.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Plaintiff’s objections are difficult to decipher. Those objections appear, however, to 5 merely restate the allegations of plaintiff’s TAC without meaningfully addressing the pleading 6 deficiencies identified in the findings and recommendations. For these reasons, plaintiff’s 7 objections do not provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 8 recommendations. 9 Furthermore, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. Plaintiff has not 10 met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. Chen, No. 1:11-cv- 11 01762-MJS, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Being a pro se litigant who 12 receives mental health treatment does not automatically entitle plaintiff to counsel; the court is 13 regularly faced with cases filed by prisoners proceeding pro se while receiving mental health 14 treatment. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App’x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020)1 (affirming the district 15 court’s decision to deny the plaintiff appointment of counsel because the plaintiff’s 16 “circumstances were not exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro 17 se litigants”); Taylor v. Mimms, No. 1:18-cv-01356-AWI-BAM, 2019 WL 6828214, at *1 (E.D. 18 Cal. Dec. 13, 2019) (“This Court is faced with many similar cases filed by prisoners proceeding 19 pro se while receiving mental health treatment almost daily. These prisoners also must conduct 20 legal research and prosecute claims without the assistance of counsel.”). In this case, plaintiff 21 claims he suffers from “deep depression, suicidal tendencies, and ADD” (Doc. No. 24 at 3), but 22 he provides no explanation as to why those disabilities justify the appointment of counsel. See 23 Ruiz v. Stane, No. 1:22-cv-00236-HBK, 2023 WL 3324750 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) (denying 24 the plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel where he claimed “he has a mental health 25 disability and that he has a TABE score of 0.00, but provide[d] no additional facts regarding the 26 nature of his purported disability and why it justifies appointment of counsel”). 27 1 Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28 36-3(b). 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 14, 2023 (Doc. No. 23) are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel, which is incorporated in his 5 objections (Doc. No. 24), is denied; 6 3. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for 7 relief; and 8 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 17, 2024 Dal A. 2, axel 11 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28