Felix v. County of Santa Clara

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 29, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00660
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 Case No. 24-cv-00660 BLF 12 DANIEL JOS EPH FIDEL FELIX, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH Plaintiff, LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING 13 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. COUNSEL 14

15 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

16 Defendant. (Docket Nos. 7, 9) 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against the County of Santa Clara. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in 20 forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. Plaintiff also moves for appointment 21 of counsel. Dkt. Nos. 7, 9. 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 I. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 Plaintiff names “Unidentified Santa Clara County Authorities” as Defendant in this 11 action. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He seeks declaratory relief and damages. Id. at 3. 12 The complaint fails to state any cognizable claim for relief against the named 13 Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that “numerous unidentified Santa Clara County officials are 14 responsible for the affirmative actions, their participation in the affirmative actions and/or 15 their failure to perform legal ‘duty’ to intercede or intervene another officer of the court, 16 jail administrators, and other Santa Clara deputies from the clear deprivation of any rights 17 provided or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and laws from every person 18 acting under color of any statutes, ordinance, regulation, custom, of any state or territory of 19 the U.S. D.C., subjects or causes to be subjected.” Id. at 2-3. However, there are no 20 factual allegations describing specific the acts or conduct of any specific state actor. 21 Furthermore, there is no indication what rights were violated. The complaint references 18 22 U.S.C. § 241, id. at 3, but this is a federal criminal statute for which there is no private 23 right of action, see Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Other than this 24 reference, Plaintiff does not reference or identify any other federal law, statute or 25 constitutional provision, much less allege a violation thereof, and merely makes general 26 statements regarding duties of those in public office and government malfeasance. Dkt. 1 No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff shall be granted one opportunity to file an amended complaint that 2 states a cognizable claim under § 1983. 3 Plaintiff should keep the following principles in mind in preparing an amended 4 complaint. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 only if 5 Plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 6 protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of 7 Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a 8 constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 9 participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 10 required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 11 F.2d at 633. 12 III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 13 Plaintiff requests appointment counsel on the grounds of indigency, in the interest 14 of public safety, his lack of experience, complexity of the issues, and counsel would be 15 helpful during a trial. Dkt. No. 7 at 1-2.1 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a 16 civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. 17 See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 18 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), 19 withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 20 banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 1915 is 21 within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 22 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s 23 indigency and lack of experience do not distinguish him from other prisoner-plaintiffs to 24 warrant appointment of counsel. Furthermore, the complaint contains no cognizable claim 25 26 1 Plaintiff filed this motion on February 26, 2024, and then a duplicative motion on March 1 to support Plaintiff’s other proffered reasons. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED 2 without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections 3 Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 4 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 5 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte 6 appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such 7 appointment. 8 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 11 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 12 (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using 13 the court’s form complaint to correct the deficiencies described above. The amended 14 complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. 15 C 24-cv-00660 BLF (PR), and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 16 Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. 17 Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may 18 not make references to the original complaint. Claims not included in the amended 19 complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no 20 longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 21 2. Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 22 complaint or notice in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action with 23 prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief without further notice to Plaintiff. 24 3. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED. Dkt. Nos. 7, 9. 25 4. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of 26 this order to Plaintiff. 1 This order terminates Docket Nos. 7 and 9. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: __April 29, 2024 fcunthacnan 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2B 14

O 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dism. w/LTA; Deny Mot. for Appt. of Counsel P:APRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\00660Felix_dwlta 26 27