1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ESMELING BAHENA, Case No. 22-cv-03039-PCP
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S INJUNCTIVE, DISCOVERY, AND 9 v. COUNSEL MOTIONS; REFERRING ACTION TO MEDIATION 10 B. RAMIREZ, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 46, 50-52 Defendants. 11
12 13 Esmeling Bahena filed the instant civil rights lawsuit, alleging Defendants were 14 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and were negligent. See Dkt. No. 28 15 (“Amended Complaint”). The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Mr. Bahena’s allegations. 16 See Dkt. No. 30. Defendants’ dispositive motion currently is due August 1, 2024. See Dkt. No. 45. 17 For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Mr. Bahena’s motions for an injunction, 18 discovery, and to be appointed counsel. These denials are without prejudice to renewal at an 19 appropriate time or in the appropriate venue. The Court refers this action for settlement 20 proceedings. 21 A. Transfer Request 22 In his reply in support of his first discovery motion, Mr. Bahena asks the Court to order his 23 transfer to another prison. See Dkt. No. 48, at 2. The Court cannot provide such relief because 24 such an order would not be related to the subject matter of this action. See Pacific Radiation 25 Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]here must be a 26 relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted 27 in the underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion 1 The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants, officers at Salinas Valley State Prison, 2 were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Bahena’s medical needs. See Am. Compl.; see also Dkt. No. 3 30 (identifying cognizable claims). In his transfer request, Mr. Bahena explains that he feels 4 unsafe at California State Prison, Sacramento, because of animosity from and retaliation by guards 5 at that prison. See Dkt. No. 48. These are different defendants and different alleged wrongs, which 6 occurred in a different venue and at a different time from the events in the Amended Complaint. 7 Because there is no “nexus between” the transfer request and Mr. Bahena’s claims, the Court 8 cannot grant his request for injunctive relief. See Pac. Radiation Oncology., 810 F.3d at 633. This 9 request is DENIED without prejudice. 10 Although this Court cannot order that Mr. Bahena be transferred to another prison, this 11 does not prevent Mr. Bahena from filing another lawsuit in the appropriate court requesting such a 12 transfer. If Mr. Bahena believes he is in danger and a transfer is necessary for his safety, he should 13 file a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 14 He should make his concerns and request clear in his initial filings. 15 B. Discovery Motions 16 Mr. Bahena has filed several discovery-related motions, see Dkt. Nos. 46, 50, 52, which 17 are DENIED. 18 To the extent Mr. Bahena asks the Court to allow him to conduct discovery, the motions 19 are denied as unnecessary. As the Court explained in its service order, and as Defendants reiterate 20 in their opposition to Mr. Bahena’s motions, Mr. Bahena may conduct discovery without a court 21 order. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 47.1 22 To the extent Mr. Bahena asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce materials, the 23 motions are denied without prejudice because there is no indication Mr. Bahena met and conferred 24 with defendants in an attempt to obtain discovery. See generally Dkt. Nos. 46, 50, 52 (not 25 discussing any attempts to meet and confer). Courts are discouraged from considering a motion to 26 compel unless the moving party provides a certification which “accurately and specifically 27 1 conveys to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally 2 resolve the discovery dispute.” Shufflemaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 3 170 (D. Nev. 1996). Additionally, the moving party must actually perform the obligation to confer 4 or attempt to confer in good faith to resolve the discovery dispute without court intervention. Id. 5 To accomplish the underlying policy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-1, the moving 6 party must include more than a cursory statement that he attempted to confer, and “must 7 adequately set forth in the motion essential facts sufficient to enable the court to pass a preliminary 8 judgment on the adequacy and sincerity of the good faith conferment between the parties.” Id. at 9 171. A good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute without court intervention involves 10 more than “the perfunctory parroting of statutory language on the certificate to secure court 11 intervention,” and requires “a genuine attempt to resolve the discovery dispute through non 12 judicial means.” Id. 13 Mr. Bahena’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery request 14 is denied for the same reason. Dkt. No. 50. If Mr. Bahena needs additional time, he should so 15 inform Defendants directly and negotiate a new schedule with Defendants. The parties should only 16 seek assistance from this Court if they are unable to reach an agreement. The Court expects that 17 Defendants will attempt to accommodate Mr. Bahena to the extent accommodations are possible 18 and reasonable. 19 Defendants are reminded of their disclosure obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. See Fed R. Civ. P. 26–37 (rules governing discovery). If Defendants fail to meet these 21 obligations and this failure cannot be resolved between the parties, then Mr. Bahena may move to 22 compel production of documents. At the current time, Mr. Bahena’s motion is premature. 23 C. Counsel Motion and Settlement Request 24 Mr. Bahena asks the Court to appoint pro bono counsel because Mr. Bahena’s 25 incarceration makes it difficult to litigate this action. See Dkt. No. 44. This is Mr. Bahena’s second 26 request to be appointed counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 23 (first counsel motion), 30 (denying request for 27 counsel). 1 circumstances which would warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel. See Rand v. Rowland, 2 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that a district court may appoint counsel in 3 “exceptional circumstances”); see also Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) 4 (explaining that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case). The fact that a pro se 5 || litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel does not necessarily qualify plaintiff 6 || to be appointed pro bono counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) 7 (that plaintiff may well have fared better with assistance of counsel does not require appointment 8 of counsel). 9 The counsel motion is denied without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of 10 counsel at a future date. For example, if Mr. Bahena’s claim survives settlement negotiations and a 11 summary judgment motion, then the Court would sua sponte consider whether pro bono counsel 12 should be appointed before the Court sets the case for trial. 13 Mr. Bahena has asked for this case to be referred to settlement proceedings. See Dkt. No. 14 51. Mr. Bahena indicates Defendants are amenable to early settlement proceedings. See id. Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ESMELING BAHENA, Case No. 22-cv-03039-PCP
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S INJUNCTIVE, DISCOVERY, AND 9 v. COUNSEL MOTIONS; REFERRING ACTION TO MEDIATION 10 B. RAMIREZ, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 46, 50-52 Defendants. 11
12 13 Esmeling Bahena filed the instant civil rights lawsuit, alleging Defendants were 14 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and were negligent. See Dkt. No. 28 15 (“Amended Complaint”). The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Mr. Bahena’s allegations. 16 See Dkt. No. 30. Defendants’ dispositive motion currently is due August 1, 2024. See Dkt. No. 45. 17 For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Mr. Bahena’s motions for an injunction, 18 discovery, and to be appointed counsel. These denials are without prejudice to renewal at an 19 appropriate time or in the appropriate venue. The Court refers this action for settlement 20 proceedings. 21 A. Transfer Request 22 In his reply in support of his first discovery motion, Mr. Bahena asks the Court to order his 23 transfer to another prison. See Dkt. No. 48, at 2. The Court cannot provide such relief because 24 such an order would not be related to the subject matter of this action. See Pacific Radiation 25 Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]here must be a 26 relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted 27 in the underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion 1 The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants, officers at Salinas Valley State Prison, 2 were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Bahena’s medical needs. See Am. Compl.; see also Dkt. No. 3 30 (identifying cognizable claims). In his transfer request, Mr. Bahena explains that he feels 4 unsafe at California State Prison, Sacramento, because of animosity from and retaliation by guards 5 at that prison. See Dkt. No. 48. These are different defendants and different alleged wrongs, which 6 occurred in a different venue and at a different time from the events in the Amended Complaint. 7 Because there is no “nexus between” the transfer request and Mr. Bahena’s claims, the Court 8 cannot grant his request for injunctive relief. See Pac. Radiation Oncology., 810 F.3d at 633. This 9 request is DENIED without prejudice. 10 Although this Court cannot order that Mr. Bahena be transferred to another prison, this 11 does not prevent Mr. Bahena from filing another lawsuit in the appropriate court requesting such a 12 transfer. If Mr. Bahena believes he is in danger and a transfer is necessary for his safety, he should 13 file a civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 14 He should make his concerns and request clear in his initial filings. 15 B. Discovery Motions 16 Mr. Bahena has filed several discovery-related motions, see Dkt. Nos. 46, 50, 52, which 17 are DENIED. 18 To the extent Mr. Bahena asks the Court to allow him to conduct discovery, the motions 19 are denied as unnecessary. As the Court explained in its service order, and as Defendants reiterate 20 in their opposition to Mr. Bahena’s motions, Mr. Bahena may conduct discovery without a court 21 order. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 47.1 22 To the extent Mr. Bahena asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce materials, the 23 motions are denied without prejudice because there is no indication Mr. Bahena met and conferred 24 with defendants in an attempt to obtain discovery. See generally Dkt. Nos. 46, 50, 52 (not 25 discussing any attempts to meet and confer). Courts are discouraged from considering a motion to 26 compel unless the moving party provides a certification which “accurately and specifically 27 1 conveys to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally 2 resolve the discovery dispute.” Shufflemaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 3 170 (D. Nev. 1996). Additionally, the moving party must actually perform the obligation to confer 4 or attempt to confer in good faith to resolve the discovery dispute without court intervention. Id. 5 To accomplish the underlying policy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-1, the moving 6 party must include more than a cursory statement that he attempted to confer, and “must 7 adequately set forth in the motion essential facts sufficient to enable the court to pass a preliminary 8 judgment on the adequacy and sincerity of the good faith conferment between the parties.” Id. at 9 171. A good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute without court intervention involves 10 more than “the perfunctory parroting of statutory language on the certificate to secure court 11 intervention,” and requires “a genuine attempt to resolve the discovery dispute through non 12 judicial means.” Id. 13 Mr. Bahena’s motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery request 14 is denied for the same reason. Dkt. No. 50. If Mr. Bahena needs additional time, he should so 15 inform Defendants directly and negotiate a new schedule with Defendants. The parties should only 16 seek assistance from this Court if they are unable to reach an agreement. The Court expects that 17 Defendants will attempt to accommodate Mr. Bahena to the extent accommodations are possible 18 and reasonable. 19 Defendants are reminded of their disclosure obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. See Fed R. Civ. P. 26–37 (rules governing discovery). If Defendants fail to meet these 21 obligations and this failure cannot be resolved between the parties, then Mr. Bahena may move to 22 compel production of documents. At the current time, Mr. Bahena’s motion is premature. 23 C. Counsel Motion and Settlement Request 24 Mr. Bahena asks the Court to appoint pro bono counsel because Mr. Bahena’s 25 incarceration makes it difficult to litigate this action. See Dkt. No. 44. This is Mr. Bahena’s second 26 request to be appointed counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 23 (first counsel motion), 30 (denying request for 27 counsel). 1 circumstances which would warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel. See Rand v. Rowland, 2 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that a district court may appoint counsel in 3 “exceptional circumstances”); see also Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) 4 (explaining that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case). The fact that a pro se 5 || litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel does not necessarily qualify plaintiff 6 || to be appointed pro bono counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) 7 (that plaintiff may well have fared better with assistance of counsel does not require appointment 8 of counsel). 9 The counsel motion is denied without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of 10 counsel at a future date. For example, if Mr. Bahena’s claim survives settlement negotiations and a 11 summary judgment motion, then the Court would sua sponte consider whether pro bono counsel 12 should be appointed before the Court sets the case for trial. 13 Mr. Bahena has asked for this case to be referred to settlement proceedings. See Dkt. No. 14 51. Mr. Bahena indicates Defendants are amenable to early settlement proceedings. See id. Mr. 3 15 || Bahena’s request to be referred to settlement is GRANTED. a 16 This action is referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings
17 || pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to 18 Magistrate Judge Iman. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 23, 2024 22 LA Qe 23 ° Cop P. Casey Pitts 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28