1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR OROZCO, No. 2:25-cv-1994-DJC-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 AMERICAN LEGION AMBULANCE FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 state law. Plaintiff initiated this action in the Amador County Superior Court and defendants 19 removed it to this court on July 17, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On August 4, 2025, plaintiff filed a 20 motion to remand (ECF No. 5) and a motion seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction 21 prohibiting prison officials from destroying evidence. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff also filed a motion to 22 appoint counsel and for a court-appointed expert medical witness (ECF No. 9) which will be 23 denied without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is not yet fully briefed and will be 24 addressed in due course. For the following reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction should 25 be denied. 26 I. Legal Standard for a Preliminary Injunction 27 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 28 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 1 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 2 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 3 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An 4 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 5 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 6 In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 7 which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison 8 conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a 9 particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless 10 the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 11 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 12 the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 13 II. Discussion 14 Plaintiff’s motion seeks an order to preserve evidence and should be denied. Plaintiff does 15 not meet the heightened standard necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See 18 16 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any 17 showing that there is specific evidence in danger of being destroyed. Plaintiff’s motion is 18 premised on mere allegations and conclusions that a failure to enjoin destruction would result in 19 the loss of evidence. 20 “Federal courts have the implied or inherent power to issue evidence preservation orders 21 as part of their general authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 22 expeditious disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1071 23 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135–36 (2004)). In 24 addition, a federal trial court has the inherent discretionary power to make appropriate evidentiary 25 rulings in response to the destruction or spoliation of relevant evidence. Med. Lab. Mgmt. 26 Consultants v. American Broad. Cos., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). 27 The duty for litigants to preserve evidence, “backed by the court’s inherent power to 28 impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, is sufficient in most cases to secure the 1 preservation of relevant evidence.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10–cv–03579–JF/PVT, 2010 2 WL 3564847, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Sept.13, 2010) (holding that before additional measures to 3 preserve evidence are implemented, there must be some showing that there is reason for the court 4 to be concerned that potentially relevant evidence is not being preserved and that the opposing 5 party may be harmed as a result); Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) 6 (a party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that 7 the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed). 8 Courts may consider the following general factors when evaluating whether an evidence 9 preservation order is appropriate: 10 1) the level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the 11 absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation 12 of evidence absent an order directing preservation; and 3) the capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence 13 sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial 14 burdens created by ordering evidence preservation. 15 Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, 328 F.R.D. 408, 416 (S.D. Cal. 2018). 16 Here, defendants acknowledge their duty to preserve and disclose evidence relevant to 17 plaintiffs’ claim. (ECF No. 11 at 3.) Plaintiff does not demonstrate an evidence preservation order 18 is warranted or appropriate under the court’s inherent authority and does not show he is likely to 19 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction to issue. Plaintiff’s general and 20 unsupported concerns do not suffice. 21 III. Motion to Appoint Counsel and Expert Witness 22 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil 23 rights cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 24 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 26 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 27 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 28 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 1 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 2 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 3 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 4 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 5 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR OROZCO, No. 2:25-cv-1994-DJC-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 AMERICAN LEGION AMBULANCE FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 state law. Plaintiff initiated this action in the Amador County Superior Court and defendants 19 removed it to this court on July 17, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On August 4, 2025, plaintiff filed a 20 motion to remand (ECF No. 5) and a motion seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction 21 prohibiting prison officials from destroying evidence. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff also filed a motion to 22 appoint counsel and for a court-appointed expert medical witness (ECF No. 9) which will be 23 denied without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is not yet fully briefed and will be 24 addressed in due course. For the following reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction should 25 be denied. 26 I. Legal Standard for a Preliminary Injunction 27 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 28 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff 1 seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 2 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 3 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An 4 injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 5 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 6 In addition, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 7 which provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison 8 conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a 9 particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless 10 the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 11 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 12 the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 13 II. Discussion 14 Plaintiff’s motion seeks an order to preserve evidence and should be denied. Plaintiff does 15 not meet the heightened standard necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See 18 16 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any 17 showing that there is specific evidence in danger of being destroyed. Plaintiff’s motion is 18 premised on mere allegations and conclusions that a failure to enjoin destruction would result in 19 the loss of evidence. 20 “Federal courts have the implied or inherent power to issue evidence preservation orders 21 as part of their general authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 22 expeditious disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1071 23 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135–36 (2004)). In 24 addition, a federal trial court has the inherent discretionary power to make appropriate evidentiary 25 rulings in response to the destruction or spoliation of relevant evidence. Med. Lab. Mgmt. 26 Consultants v. American Broad. Cos., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). 27 The duty for litigants to preserve evidence, “backed by the court’s inherent power to 28 impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, is sufficient in most cases to secure the 1 preservation of relevant evidence.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10–cv–03579–JF/PVT, 2010 2 WL 3564847, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Sept.13, 2010) (holding that before additional measures to 3 preserve evidence are implemented, there must be some showing that there is reason for the court 4 to be concerned that potentially relevant evidence is not being preserved and that the opposing 5 party may be harmed as a result); Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) 6 (a party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that 7 the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed). 8 Courts may consider the following general factors when evaluating whether an evidence 9 preservation order is appropriate: 10 1) the level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the 11 absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence; 2) any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the preservation 12 of evidence absent an order directing preservation; and 3) the capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the evidence 13 sought to be preserved, not only as to the evidence’s original form, condition or contents, but also the physical, spatial and financial 14 burdens created by ordering evidence preservation. 15 Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, 328 F.R.D. 408, 416 (S.D. Cal. 2018). 16 Here, defendants acknowledge their duty to preserve and disclose evidence relevant to 17 plaintiffs’ claim. (ECF No. 11 at 3.) Plaintiff does not demonstrate an evidence preservation order 18 is warranted or appropriate under the court’s inherent authority and does not show he is likely to 19 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction to issue. Plaintiff’s general and 20 unsupported concerns do not suffice. 21 III. Motion to Appoint Counsel and Expert Witness 22 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil 23 rights cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 24 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 26 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 27 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 28 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 1 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 2 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 3 circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 4 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 5 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 6 Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to 7 meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 8 counsel at this time. 9 Plaintiff has also requested a court-appointed expert medical witness. The expenditure of 10 public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. 11 Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, plaintiff has not sought or been granted in 12 forma pauperis status. But even assuming that plaintiff may be eligible to be granted in forma 13 pauperis status, the in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds 14 for witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s request for a court-appointed expert medical 15 witness will be denied. 16 IV. Order and Recommendation 17 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel 18 (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice and the accompanying request for a court-appointed 19 expert medical request is DENIED. 20 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 21 injunction in the form of an evidence preservation order (ECF No. 6) be denied without prejudice. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 27 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 28 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 1 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 | Dated: August 20, 2025 Card ft 4 by — 3 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 ‘ 8, oroz1994.mpi 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28