(PC)Laguer v. Arreola

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 GEORGE A. LAGUER, No. 1:24-cv-00979-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS 14 H. ARREOLA, et al.,

15 Defendants. Docs. 20, 24 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On May 20, 2025, defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims to 22 the extent they are brought against defendants in their official capacity. Doc. 20. On July 2, 23 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that 24 defendants’ motion be granted. Doc. 24. The findings and recommendations were served on the 25 parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days 26 after service. Id. at 5. No objections were filed to the findings and recommendations. 27 On July 9, 2025, plaintiff filed objections, Docs. 25, 27, to the magistrate judge’s prior 28 order, Doc. 23, which denied plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Doc. 22. Defendants 1 | filed reply on July 23, 2025, Doc. 26. The Court construes plaintiff's objections as a motion for 2 | reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying the appointment of counsel. □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 | objections fails to establish the “exceptional circumstances” required to justify appointment of 4 | counsel. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, 5 | based on a review of plaintiff's filings, it is clear that plaintiff is able to articulate his claims and 6 | arguments. Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not err in denying the appointment of counsel 7 | and plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de 9 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 10 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 11 Accordingly: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 2, 2025, Doc. 24 are ADOPTED in full; 13 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against defendants in their official 14 capacity, Doc. 20, is GRANTED; 15 3. Plaintiff's objections, Doc. 25 & 27, construed as motions for reconsideration of the 16 magistrate judge’s order denying appointment of counsel, Doc. 30, are denied. 17 4. Defendants shall file an answer to the operative complaint within fourteen (14) days from 18 the date of service of this order. 19 20 91 | TIS SO ORDERED. _ 22 Dated: _ August 31, 2025 4h 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28