Georges v. Phillip

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AGNES GEORGES, et al, Case No.: 21cv2095-LAB (WVG)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. 1) DENYING AS MOOT IFP 14 FELIX PHILLIP, et al, MOTION (Dkt. 8); 15 Defendants. 2) DENYING APPOINTMENT OF 16 COUNSEL (Dkt. 9); AND 17 3) DISMISSING AMENDED 18 COMPLAINT (Dkt. 7) 19

20 Plaintiff Agnes Georges (“Georges”), proceeding pro se, has filed an 21 Amended Complaint—this time against Defendants Joshua Magistrate Chief 911, 22 K9, Felix Phillip, Larry Rothmer Law Firm Company, Gov Tower, Prince William, 23 Woodbridge VA, Eastern District Dept Curtis Drive VA, Columbia District DC - 24 Pentagon, and Comcast Business AT&T Internet. (Dkt. 7). Her Amended 25 Complaint was previously filed improperly as a new matter in connection with Case 26 No. 3:22-cv-00026-LAB-WVG, rather than as an amended complaint in the above- 27 captioned case. Per the Court’s instructions, the Clerk of Court has since 28 terminated Case No. 3:22-cv-00026-LAB-WVG and transferred all docket entries 1 in Case No. 3:22-cv-00026-LAB-WVG to Case No. 21-cv-02095-LAB-WVG. 2 Georges now reapplies for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and requests 3 once more that the Court appoint her an attorney because she can’t afford one. 4 But the Court already granted her IFP status in this case, (see Dkt. 6), so her 5 motion is DENIED AS MOOT, (Dkt. 8). As for her request that the Court appoint 6 her an attorney, the Court already denied her this request based on similar—if not 7 identical—circumstances. (See Dkt. 3, 6). She seeks an appointment of counsel 8 because she is unemployed and has no income other than $850 per month, yet 9 her expenses total nearly $1000. (Dkt. 9 ¶¶ 10–12). But as the Court already found, 10 Georges doesn’t allege any “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant the 11 appointment of counsel here, particularly in light of her continued failure to correct 12 the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s December 29, 2021 Order. See 13 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2004); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 14 of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 15 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)) (“A finding of the exceptional 16 circumstances . . . requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s 17 success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his 18 claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’”). Therefore, the 19 Court DENIES her motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 9). 20 Finally, the Court previously screened and dismissed Georges’s original 21 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) for failing to articulate a 22 cognizable basis for granting the relief that she requested and because she sought 23 impermissible forms of relief. (Dkt. 6). Like her original Complaint, her Amended 24 Complaint makes various vague and incomprehensible allegations, and the Court 25 is unable to ascertain any valid legal claim that would support a request for relief. 26 For instance, Georges strings together seemingly unrelated terms and phrases but 27 provides no indication that they are related to any cognizable claim. (See Dkt. 7 28 at 2 (“Raped, paternity, unemployment, tax return SS# benefits, medical 1 ||malpractice, wrong medicine, another maltreatment, sexual harassment, naked 2 ||body exposed, long lasting case, retaliation, even doctors involve [sic], death 3 penalty .. .”)). The rest of her Amended Complaint fares no better. 4 While the court has an “obligation . . . where the petitioner is pro se, 5 || particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 6 || petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 7 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)), 8 || it may not, in so doing, “supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 9 || pled,” /vey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 10 |/Cir. 1982). Here, the Court can’t make out what claim Georges is attempting to 11 allege, let alone determine whether she’s properly satisfied the elements of that 12 |{claim, and thus her Amended Complaint must be dismissed. See McHenry v. 13 || Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding dismissal appropriate where 14 “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and 15 ||on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 16 Because Georges again fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 17 ||granted, and because any further amendment would be clearly futile, the Court 18 || DISMISSES the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) 19 || WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and WITH PREJUDICE. See Schmier v. U.S. 20 ||Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) 21 || (recognizing futility of amendment as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to 22 ||amend); Carrico v. City & Cnty. Of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 23 2001). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate 24 || this case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 ||Dated: August 17, 2022 lau A (Buywy 27 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 28 United States District Judge