Miranda v. Madden

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 9, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01605
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ 9 | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} HUMBERTO I. MIRANDA, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01605-LAB-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 || V. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 14 |} RAYMOND MADDEN et al., [Doc. 3.] 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff HUMBERTO I. MIRANDA (“Plaintiff’), a California prisoner proceeding 19 ||in pro per and in forma pauperis, has filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (the “Motion”) 20 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)'. The grounds for the Motion are that: Plaintiffis unable 21 ||to employ counsel; the issues involved in this matter are complex; and it is difficult for 22 || Plaintiff to understand how to further proceed; serious and complex discovery proceedings 23 ||are necessary; Plaintiff's access to legal books and materials is limited due to his 24 25 26 ||! Although Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in support of his Motion, the statute governing the appointment of counsel to pro se litigants is found at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It appears Plaintiff may 27 || have used a form motion containing an outdated citation. Given the policy of liberal construction of pre 4g ||S° prisoners’ pleadings, see Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n. 7 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court construes Plaintiffs request as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). ]

1 ||incarceration; Plaintiff has very little legal knowledge or experience; and, the interests of 2 ||justice and judicial economy are best served by the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3, at 3- 3 114.) 4 Il, BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several California 6 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employees working at Centinela State Prison 7 ||(“Centinela”) and Pelican Bay State Prison (“Pelican Bay”). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges 8 ||that on August 22, 2015 during a visit with his girlfriend in the Facility C visiting room at 9 || Centinela, a portion of the ceiling collapsed on his head, face, neck, and back. (Doc. 1, at 10 14-15.) Plaintiff allegedly asked Defendants Ramirez and Flores (correctional officers 11 assigned to the visiting room) for medical aid, but Ramirez and Flores laughed and called 12 || Plaintiff a liar. (Doc. 1, at 17-18.) When Ramirez and Flores eventually called medical 13 || staff, the responding nurse Defendant John Doe told Plaintiff—without examining him— 14 ||that his pain would subside and that he would be seen the next day. (Doc. 1, at 19.) 15 || Additionally, an unnamed staff member informed Plaintiff that Defendant Warden 16 ||Raymond Madden would be notified of the incident and Defendant Health Care CEO 17 ||Kevin Reilly would provide medical care. (Doc. 1, at 19.) Despite these assurances. 18 || Plaintiff did not receive proper care for his injuries until his transfer to Calipatria State 19 || Prison (“Calipatria”) more than a year later. (Doc. 1, at 21-22.) X-rays taken at Calipatrie 20 November 22, 2016 allegedly showed a predisposition to rotator cuff injury. (Doc. 1. 21 22.) 22 After a 2017 transfer to Pelican Bay, Plaintiff came under the care of Defendant Dr 23 ||Nancy Adam. (Doc. 1, at 22.) Plaintiff allegedly complained to Dr. Adam about his 24 ||continually-worsening shoulder injury, which now comprised a limited range of motior 25 severe pain, but she denied him physical therapy, an X-ray, and an MRI. (Doc. 1, a 26 ||22.) Two years passed before Dr. Adam ordered an MRI, the results of which showec 27 |\“rotator cuff tendonitis with an abnormal high signal within the superior labrum 28 |jImpression: Torn labrum with associated cyst, AC Joint arthropathy with latera

1 ||downsloping acromion.” (Doc. 1, at 22-23.) Although Plaintiff eventually received 2 ||surgery, he will not regain function in his right arm “for another year if ever.” (Doc. 1, at 3 ||23.) Plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment causes of action against Flores, Ramirez, and 4 ||Madden for their failure to protect Plaintiff against the ceiling collapse, and against all 5 ||named defendants for their failure to provide adequate medical care. (See Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 6 ||seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000, punitive damages in the amount 7 $100,000 against each defendant, and a declaration that the defendants’ acts anc 8 || omissions violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Doc. 1, at 24-25.) 9 Il, APPLICABLE LAW 10 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. Spellman 11 |}654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under “exceptiona 12 ||circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert 14 || denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). When determining whether 15 ||“exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 16 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 17 ||complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir 18 || 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive but instead must be viewed together 19 || Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 20 Only “rarely” will a federal court find a case to be so complex that it is appropriat 21 appoint counsel for a civil litigant who faces no loss of liberty in the controversy at hand 22 |\|See Dotson v. Doctor, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72791, *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2014 23 ||(“[c]lounsel is appointed in civil cases such as this only rarely, if exceptional circumstance 24 || exist”); United States v. Melluzzo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53053, *3 (D. Ariz. May 3, 2010 25 ||(“appointment of counsel in a civil case is rarely invoked ...”); see also Schwartzmille 26 ||v. Roberts, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1620 *3 n.1 (D. Or. Feb. 11, 1994) (“i]t is extremel 27 |\rare that indigent civil defendants are appointed counsel in judicial proceedings”). 28

1 IV.DISCUSSION 2 Here, the Court does not find that “exceptional circumstances” exist to justify the 3 || appointment of counsel at this time. Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. It is difficult to determine 4 || Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of his claims because litigation is only in the 5 ||pleading stage. However, if Plaintiff produces evidence to support the allegations in the 6 ||Complaint, it is possible he could succeed. If the case proceeds beyond summary 7 |\\judgment, the Court would be in a better position to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of 8 success on the merits. 9 Furthermore, Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 10 complexity of legal issues involved. Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. Plaintiff claims 11 || violations of the Eighth Amendment tied to the collapse of a ceiling at a Centinela visiting 12 |;room and subsequent lack of medical care to treat his injuries. (Doc. 1.) His Complaint is 13 j|written clearly and is capable of being understood, notwithstanding the fact he is 14 || incarcerated and has very little legal knowledge or experience. 15 Given the early stage of the litigation and Plaintiffs ability to clearly articulate his 16 ||claims pro se, the Court does not find that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the 17 appointment of counsel at this time. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. To the extent this case 18 ||proceeds beyond summary judgment, the Court would consider a future motion fot 19 || appointment of trial counsel. 20 V. CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. 22 || without prejudice. 23 || DATE: September 5, 2019 24 25