3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 MICHELL BLANCO, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00050-ART-CRD
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JACOBY, ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 Pro se Plaintiff Michell Blanco (“Blanco”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 12 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig Denney (ECF No. 13 58), recommending that this Court enter an order denying Plaintiff’s request 14 under Rule 56(d), and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 15 No. 41) as to defendant Maldonado, but denying it as to defendant Jacoby. Also 16 before the Court is Blanco’s motion to dismiss his previous opposition to the 17 R&R (ECF No. 74) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 75).1 For the 18 reasons explained below the Court adopts the R&R, grants Jacoby’s motion to 19 dismiss his opposition to the R&R (ECF No. 74), and grants in part his motion 20 for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 75) . 21 Three Eighth Amendment claims in this case survived screening. (ECF 22 No. 4.) First, Blanco was allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim 23 against defendant Maldonado based on alleged persistent sexual harassment. 24 Second, Blanco was allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment conditions 25 of confinement claim against Maldonado. Blanco alleges that when he did not 26 respond to Maldonado’s advances, Maldonado started to put trash in Plaintiff’s 27
28 1 ECF Nos. 74 and 75 are duplicates. Because Blanco requests two different forms of relief in one 1 food, denied him a food plate, or gave Blanco his food plate last because 2 Maldonado did not want to be the one to feed Blanco. In addition, Blanco avers 3 that Maldonado made sure to keep Plaintiff awake at night by beating on the 4 window/door of his cell every two hours, opening and closing the cell doors, and 5 then would smile at Plaintiff and flash a light over Plaintiff’s face repeatedly. 6 Third, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim against 7 defendant Jacoby based on allegations that Jacoby began to tell medical 8 personnel, inmates, and others that Plaintiff is in prison for being a homosexual 9 who likes to have sex with little boys. After making these comments, Blanco avers 10 that Jacoby’s co-workers spit in his food. 11 Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) there is no 12 evidence Maldonado or Jacoby engaged in any of the conduct attributed to them; 13 (2) when Plaintiff alleges these events occurred, Maldonado was working at 14 Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC), and not at ESP; (3) Plaintiff did not 15 properly exhaust his administrative remedies; and (4) most of the claims are 16 barred by the statute of limitations. 17 Blanco responded that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 18 should be denied because discovery has not been completed in full. Judge 19 Denney construed his argument as a request to deny the motion under Federal 20 rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a court to defer or deny a motion, 21 allow additional time to obtain evidence or take discovery, or issue any other 22 appropriate order if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 23 specified reasons, he cannot present facts essential to justify opposition. Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 56(d). Judge Denney rejected Jacoby’s request to deny the motion for 25 summary judgment because he did not demonstrate what facts he could obtain 26 through additional time or additional discovery that would help him oppose 27 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 28 1 Judge Denney found that Defendants presented evidence demonstrating 2 that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies with respect 3 to the claims against Maldonado. The time for Plaintiff to grieve these issues has 4 passed under AR 740. Therefore, he recommended summary judgment should 5 be granted in Maldonado’s favor. 6 The Eighth Amendment claim against Jacoby is based only on the 7 allegations that Jacoby falsely told others that he was a homosexual child 8 molester and that this caused Jacoby’s co-workers to spit in his food. Judge 9 Denney found that Blanco has exhausted his administrative remedies as to 10 Jacoby. Judge Denney also found that there was a genuine dispute of material 11 fact as to whether Jacoby made these statements and whether the statements 12 resulted in her co-workers spitting in his food. Therefore, he recommended 13 summary judgment should be denied as to Jacoby. 14 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 15 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 16 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 17 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 18 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 19 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 20 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 21 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 22 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 23 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 24 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 25 Defendants do not object to the R&R. Blanco did initially object but no 26 longer objects to the R&R. Blanco initially filed a “Letter from Plaintiff to DAG 27 Dorame” (ECF No. 60) along with a “Notice on Maldonado Defendant, Plaintiff 28 Not Failed to Exhaust the Grievance Process” (ECF No. 63). He subsequently 1 moved the Court to dismiss his objections, adopt the R&R, and appoint counsel. 2 (ECF Nos. 74; 75.) 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Denney did not clearly err. Having reviewed the 5 R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 6 The Court will also appoint counsel for the purposes of engaging in 7 settlement negotiations and, if no settlement is reached, to represent Blanco at 8 trial. In limited circumstances, federal courts are empowered to request an 9 attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant. The Court previously denied 10 Blanco’s request for counsel (ECF No. 28) despite Blanco’s lack of fluency in 11 English reasoning that the issues were not very complex, and Blanco had 12 demonstrated an ability to litigate his case. In light of changed circumstances, 13 specifically Blanco’s now-imminent jury trial, the Court finds that exceptional 14 circumstances now justify the appointment of counsel. To determine whether 15 exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider: (1) the likelihood of 16 success on the merits; and (2) the ability of the petitioner to articulate their 17 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. 18 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 19 Blanco has one claim that has survived despite numerous challenges by 20 an adversary well represented by counsel. Based on the Court’s review of the 21 record there is a likelihood of success on the merits.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5 * * *
6 MICHELL BLANCO, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00050-ART-CRD
7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JACOBY, ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 Pro se Plaintiff Michell Blanco (“Blanco”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 12 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig Denney (ECF No. 13 58), recommending that this Court enter an order denying Plaintiff’s request 14 under Rule 56(d), and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 15 No. 41) as to defendant Maldonado, but denying it as to defendant Jacoby. Also 16 before the Court is Blanco’s motion to dismiss his previous opposition to the 17 R&R (ECF No. 74) and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 75).1 For the 18 reasons explained below the Court adopts the R&R, grants Jacoby’s motion to 19 dismiss his opposition to the R&R (ECF No. 74), and grants in part his motion 20 for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 75) . 21 Three Eighth Amendment claims in this case survived screening. (ECF 22 No. 4.) First, Blanco was allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim 23 against defendant Maldonado based on alleged persistent sexual harassment. 24 Second, Blanco was allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment conditions 25 of confinement claim against Maldonado. Blanco alleges that when he did not 26 respond to Maldonado’s advances, Maldonado started to put trash in Plaintiff’s 27
28 1 ECF Nos. 74 and 75 are duplicates. Because Blanco requests two different forms of relief in one 1 food, denied him a food plate, or gave Blanco his food plate last because 2 Maldonado did not want to be the one to feed Blanco. In addition, Blanco avers 3 that Maldonado made sure to keep Plaintiff awake at night by beating on the 4 window/door of his cell every two hours, opening and closing the cell doors, and 5 then would smile at Plaintiff and flash a light over Plaintiff’s face repeatedly. 6 Third, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim against 7 defendant Jacoby based on allegations that Jacoby began to tell medical 8 personnel, inmates, and others that Plaintiff is in prison for being a homosexual 9 who likes to have sex with little boys. After making these comments, Blanco avers 10 that Jacoby’s co-workers spit in his food. 11 Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) there is no 12 evidence Maldonado or Jacoby engaged in any of the conduct attributed to them; 13 (2) when Plaintiff alleges these events occurred, Maldonado was working at 14 Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC), and not at ESP; (3) Plaintiff did not 15 properly exhaust his administrative remedies; and (4) most of the claims are 16 barred by the statute of limitations. 17 Blanco responded that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 18 should be denied because discovery has not been completed in full. Judge 19 Denney construed his argument as a request to deny the motion under Federal 20 rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a court to defer or deny a motion, 21 allow additional time to obtain evidence or take discovery, or issue any other 22 appropriate order if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 23 specified reasons, he cannot present facts essential to justify opposition. Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 56(d). Judge Denney rejected Jacoby’s request to deny the motion for 25 summary judgment because he did not demonstrate what facts he could obtain 26 through additional time or additional discovery that would help him oppose 27 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 28 1 Judge Denney found that Defendants presented evidence demonstrating 2 that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies with respect 3 to the claims against Maldonado. The time for Plaintiff to grieve these issues has 4 passed under AR 740. Therefore, he recommended summary judgment should 5 be granted in Maldonado’s favor. 6 The Eighth Amendment claim against Jacoby is based only on the 7 allegations that Jacoby falsely told others that he was a homosexual child 8 molester and that this caused Jacoby’s co-workers to spit in his food. Judge 9 Denney found that Blanco has exhausted his administrative remedies as to 10 Jacoby. Judge Denney also found that there was a genuine dispute of material 11 fact as to whether Jacoby made these statements and whether the statements 12 resulted in her co-workers spitting in his food. Therefore, he recommended 13 summary judgment should be denied as to Jacoby. 14 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 15 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 16 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 17 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 18 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 19 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 20 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 21 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 22 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 23 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 24 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 25 Defendants do not object to the R&R. Blanco did initially object but no 26 longer objects to the R&R. Blanco initially filed a “Letter from Plaintiff to DAG 27 Dorame” (ECF No. 60) along with a “Notice on Maldonado Defendant, Plaintiff 28 Not Failed to Exhaust the Grievance Process” (ECF No. 63). He subsequently 1 moved the Court to dismiss his objections, adopt the R&R, and appoint counsel. 2 (ECF Nos. 74; 75.) 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Denney did not clearly err. Having reviewed the 5 R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 6 The Court will also appoint counsel for the purposes of engaging in 7 settlement negotiations and, if no settlement is reached, to represent Blanco at 8 trial. In limited circumstances, federal courts are empowered to request an 9 attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant. The Court previously denied 10 Blanco’s request for counsel (ECF No. 28) despite Blanco’s lack of fluency in 11 English reasoning that the issues were not very complex, and Blanco had 12 demonstrated an ability to litigate his case. In light of changed circumstances, 13 specifically Blanco’s now-imminent jury trial, the Court finds that exceptional 14 circumstances now justify the appointment of counsel. To determine whether 15 exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider: (1) the likelihood of 16 success on the merits; and (2) the ability of the petitioner to articulate their 17 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. 18 Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 19 Blanco has one claim that has survived despite numerous challenges by 20 an adversary well represented by counsel. Based on the Court’s review of the 21 record there is a likelihood of success on the merits. While Blanco represented 22 himself during the initial phases of this case, trying his case to a jury is a 23 significantly more complex undertaking. This is particularly so given his alleged 24 lack of fluency in English. The experience of taking a claim through jury trial is 25 not part of the “difficulties which any litigant would have in proceeding pro se[.]” 26 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts recognize 27 that appointment of counsel at a jury trial may be justified even if the court 28 declined to appoint counsel earlier in the case. See Walker v. Price, 900 F.3d 933, 1 939-942 (7th Cir. 2018) (district court erred in denying prisoner’s pre-trial 2 request for counsel at his jury trial). The assistance of counsel becomes 3 increasingly important as litigation enters its later stages and the tasks become 4 more complex. Perez v. Fenolgio, 792 F.3d 768, 785 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Taking 5 depositions, conducting witness examinations, applying the rules of evidence, 6 and making opening statements are beyond the ability of most pro se litigants to 7 successfully carry out.”). So, while a pro se plaintiff may be able to adequately 8 articulate their claims on paper at the pretrial stage, presentation of evidence at 9 trial requires greater knowledge of legal rules and procedures as well as 10 increased technical skills in public speaking and presentation. Appointed 11 counsel also can assist the court in handling the trial “more efficiently and 12 effectively.” Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 656 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 13 For these reasons, the Court finds that extraordinary circumstances now 14 exist which merit the appointment of counsel for Blanco. As such, the Court will 15 appoint pro bono counsel to represent Blanco for all purposes, including a 16 settlement conference and trial. 17 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and 19 Recommendation (ECF No. 58) is accepted and adopted in full; 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary 21 judgment (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED as to defendant Maldonado, but DENIED as 22 to defendant Jacoby; 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to concede to the R&R 24 (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED; 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 26 counsel (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED; 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be referred to the Pro Bono 28 Program for all purposes, including a settlement conference and trial. Counsel 1 || may choose to take this case for the settlement conference only or trial too, if the 2 || case does not settle. Counsel must inform plaintiff and the Pro Bono Program 3 || Liaison regarding the scope of their representation when they agree to take the 4 || case. 5 6 DATED THIS 27t Day of February 2023. 7 8 A posed 9 ANNE R. TRAUM 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28