Godoy v. Brown ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAURICE GODOY, Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT 9 v. OR TEMPORARY ORDER FOR INJUNCTION; DENYING MOTION 10 EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al., FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 29 12 13 14 Plaintiff, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”), filed this pro se civil rights action 15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s ex parte motion for 16 immediate and permanent or temporary order for injunction; and motion for appointment of 17 counsel. Dkt. No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES these motions. 18 BACKGROUND 19 The Court dismissed the initial complaint and the amended complaint for failure to comply 20 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) in that both complaints raised claims regarding various 21 unrelated incidents that happened over several years at various different prisons. Dkt. Nos. 9, 28. 22 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is due by December 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 28. Currently there 23 is no operative complaint, and no defendants have been served. 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Motion for Immediate and Permanent or Temporary Order for Injunction 26 In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff makes the following allegations. In August 27 2019, while incarcerated at Substance Abuse Training Facility, prison guards manipulated or 1 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; prison officials retaliated against him by 2 spreading false inflammatory rumors about him, such as that he was a sex offender; prison 3 officials confiscated his personal property and legal mail, and interfered with his access to the 4 courts; and the law library denied him copies. Plaintiff also complains of the medical treatment 5 provided (and not provided) by various chiropractors. Plaintiff was transferred to CSP where he 6 continues to be the target of a conspiracy amongst correctional officials to retaliate against him 7 and deny him medical care. Dkt. No. 29 at 1-9. 8 Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief declaring that correctional officials have violated his 9 federal constitutional rights and his state law rights, with the violations ranging from medical 10 malpractice, medical negligence, deliberate indifference, retaliation, due process violations, search 11 and seizure without a legal warrant, coercion, assault and battery. Dkt. No. 29 at 10-11. Plaintiff 12 seeks an injunction requiring Warden Clark and all other defendants to provide him with adequate 13 medical care, to stop all retaliatory actions, and to stop the illegal control of plaintiff’s legal 14 documents. Dkt. No. 29 at 12. 15 Plaintiff’s request for an injunction or temporary restraining order is DENIED for the 16 following reasons. 17 First, prior to granting a preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse party is required. See 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for preliminary injunction cannot be decided until 19 the parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, 20 the amended complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and no parties have yet been 21 served. A TRO may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s 22 attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified 23 complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before 24 the adverse party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s 25 attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the 26 reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 27 Plaintiff has failed to satisfy either of these requirements. With respect to the first requirement, 1 Plaintiff has since been transferred out of that facility. His conclusory allegation that there is a 2 || conspiracy amongst prison officials at different facilities is insufficient to show an immediate and 3 irreparable injury, loss or damage will result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. 4 Second, a preliminary injunction is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as 5 || that to be finally granted. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 6 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, it is not yet certain what relief this action seeks because there is no 7 operative complaint. 8 Accordingly, the request for injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order is DENIED. 9 II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Plaintiff has renewed his request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 29. 10 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Sves., 452 U.S. 11 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 12 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 13 || circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff has previously requested appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 19. The Court denied 14 || this initial request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances; and because it was unclear at that time if plaintiff had presented cognizable claims, there being no operative 2 15 complaint, and because plaintiff had ably prosecuted this case thus far, having filed at least three 2 motions seeking various types of relief. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiff's renewed request for appointment 16 |! of counsel (Dkt. No. 29) does not indicate that plaintiff’s circumstances have changed significantly. There is still no operative complaint, and plaintiff continues to ably prosecute this case. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion requesting appointment of counsel is DENIED for lack 4 18 || of exceptional circumstances. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such 19 |) appointment. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs ex parte motion for immediate and permanent or 22 || temporary order for injunction; and motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED. Dkt. No. 29. 23 This order terminates Dkt. No. 29. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 26, 2019 26 Amped 5 Ml HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 27 United States District Judge 28 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MAURICE GODOY, 7 Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG Plaintiff, 8 9 Vv. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al., Defendants. 11 12 . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 13 = District Court, Northern District of California. 14 That on December 26, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 15 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 16 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 17 receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Z 18 19 Maurice Godoy ID: V83154 Corcoran State Prison 20 || 4001 King Avenue Cocoran, CA 93212 21 22 Dated: December 26, 2019 23 Susan Y. Soong 24 Clerk, United States District Court 25 26 » By: 27 Nikki D. Riley, Dapguty Clerk to the 28 Honorable HAYW®OD S. GILLIAM, JR.