Ramirez v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NARCISO RAMIREZ, 11 Case No. 24-cv-01714 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 13 DENYING CLASS ACTION STATUS 14 C. PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants. 15 (Docket No. 55)

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Salinas Valley State Prison for excessive force. The third 20 amended complaint (“TAC”) is the operative complaint. Dkt. No. 46. The Court found 21 the TAC stated a cognizable claim and ordered service on Defendants Hernandez, Saeturn, 22 Alvarez, and Sivongsa. Dkt. No. 50. On January 21, 2025, Defendants Sivongsa and 23 Alvarez appeared. Dkt. No. 54. Their response to the Court’s Order of Service is 24 currently due by February 11, 2025. See Dkt. No. 50 at 5. As for the other two 25 defendants, the CDCR filed notice that Defendants Hernandez and Saeturn had left their 26 employment; service was reissued to these defendants at their last know addresses 27 provided by the CDCR. Dkt. Nos. 52, 53. 1 counsel, and “requesting to review case as potential class action for several plaintiffs with 2 similar and familiar circumstances.” Dkt. No. 55. As for the first request, Plaintiff shall 3 be provided with a copy of the docket in this matter. 4 As for his request for appointment of counsel, there is no constitutional right to 5 counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses 6 the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. 7 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 8 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 9 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under § 10 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 11 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiff 12 has presented no grounds to support his request. Dkt. No. 55 at 1. Accordingly, the 13 request is DENIED for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corrections 14 Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (9th Cir. 15 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 16 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 As for whether this case is suitable for class action, we look to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 23(a). The prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that (1) the class is 19 so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions 20 of law and fact, (3) the representative party’s claims or defenses are typical of the class 21 claims or defenses, and (4) the representative party will fairly and adequately protect the 22 class interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). This action involves a single incident of 23 excessive force against Plaintiff. Other than his general assertion that there are “several 24 plaintiffs with similar and familiar circumstances,” Plaintiff provides no other information 25 to indicate that a class action is appropriate. Dkt. No. 55 at 1. Accordingly, the Court finds 26 no basis for this matter to be a class action. 1 This order terminates Docket No. 55. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: January 30, 2025 feiinihacncen 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12

O 2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Denying Mot. For Appt. of Counsel and Class Action 25 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\01714Ramirez_atty 26 27