(PC) Gonzalez v. Akhavan ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME CESAR GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01506 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 14 AKHAVAN, et al., (Doc. 21) 15 Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 16 (Doc. 22) 17 Jaime Cesar Gonzalez seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 while incarcerated at California City Correctional Facility and Ironwood State Prison, and when 19 Plaintiff received treatment at Adventist Health hospital. (See generally Doc. 18.) The 20 magistrate judge screened the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and found 21 “Plaintiff is attempting to bring multiple claims that arise from different and unrelated 22 occurrences and different institutions.” (Doc. 21 at 8.) For this reason, the magistrate judge 23 declined to “screen any claims arising from any Defendants’ conduct while at Ironwood State 24 Prison.” (Id.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff raised claims that duplicated those raised 25 in Case Nos. 1:23-cv-1501-JLT SAB and 1:23-cv-1359-GSA, alleging excessive force by 26 correctional officers and wrongful actions by nurses at Adventist Health, and declined to screen 27 the duplicated claims. (Id. at 4, n.6; id.at 5, n.7.) 28 In screening the remaining claims, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff stated a cognizable 1 claim for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 2 Defendants Lt. Jane Doe, correctional officer John Doe, and correctional officer Martinez for 3 forcing Plaintiff into the transport van following back surgery. (Doc. 21 at 10-11.) The 4 magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s other claims were not cognizable. (See id. at 8-13.) Because 5 Plaintiff was previously “provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards” and was 6 “unable to cure the identified deficiencies,” the magistrate judge found that further leave to 7 amend was not warranted. (Id. at 13.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 8 remaining claims and defendants be dismissed for “Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which 9 relief may be granted.” (Id.) 10 In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that he is “limited in his understanding of the law [and] 11 procedures,” and was “under the impression that ‘amending’ claims was putting together all 12 relevant claims that [transpired]… from one place to the next.” (Doc. 22 at 1.) He requests the 13 Court appoint counsel to assist in this matter. (Id. at 1-2.) Thus, Plaintiff does not dispute the 14 findings that he stated claims duplicative to those raised in other pending actions, or that many 15 claims raised in the amended complaint were not cognizable. 16 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 17 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes 18 the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Further, 19 to the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel in his objections, the Court denies the request. 20 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action, and the Court 21 cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Adir Int’l, 22 LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2021); Mallard v. U.S. Dist. 23 Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances the Court may 24 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Palmer v. Valdez, 560 25 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). At this early juncture, the Court is unable to determine whether 26 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Additionally, Plaintiff appears capable of 27 adequately articulating his claims and arguing legal issues without the assistance of counsel. 28 Exceptional circumstances do not exist now that would warrant appointment of counsel. Thus, 1 | the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 15, 2024 (Doc. 21) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 2. This action SHALL proceed only on Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Jane 5 Doe, John Doe, and Martinez for deliberate indifference to medical care in 6 violation of the Eighth Amendment, as stated in the amended complaint (Doc. 18). 7 3. Plaintiffs claims related to incidents at Ironwood State Prison are DISMISSED 8 without prejudice. 9 4. Plaintiff's duplicative claims—concerning the alleged excessive force by 10 correctional officers and the actions of the nurses at Adventist Health—are 11 DISMISSED without prejudice to proceeding on the claims raised in Case Nos. 12 1:23-cv-1501-JLT SAB and 1:23-cv-1359-GSA. 13 5. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action for failure to 14 state claims upon which relief may be granted. 15 6. Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 16 7. This action is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _November 19, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28