Salmen v. California Department of Correction Rehabilitation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN SALMEN, CDCR #BK-5881, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02088-GPC-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING 13 v. CORRESPONDENCE FROM PLAINTIFF 14 CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF

CORRECTIONS AND 15 [Doc. No. 18] REHABILITATION; S. ROBERTS; M. 16 GLYNN; J. HODGES; A. KENDALL; DR. CHAU; H. FRANKLIN; S. 17 ANDERSON; A. SHITTU; S. GATES, 18 Defendants. 19

20 Plaintiff Justin Salmen (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 21 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants violated his rights 22 under the United States Constitution. See Doc. No. 7. The Court is in receipt of 23 correspondence from plaintiff dated January 21, 2021 (the “Letter”). Doc. No. 18. This 24 District’s Local Rules prohibit litigants from “writing letters to the judge, or otherwise 25 communicating with the judge unless opposing counsel is present.” CivLR 83.9. 26 Nevertheless, because plaintiff asks in the Letter for the Court’s “consideration on 27 counsel,” the Court has accepted the Letter for filing and will construe it as a renewed 28 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s December 18, 2020 Order in which the Court 1 denied plaintiff’s request to have counsel appointed to represent him in this matter. See 2 Doc. No. 12; see also Doc. No. 15 (January 12, 2021 Order denying plaintiff’s first Motion 3 for Reconsideration). Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 4 As the Court has explained, “there is no absolute right to counsel in civil 5 proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). The 6 Court will appoint counsel only where plaintiff demonstrates that he is likely to succeed on 7 the merits of his claims, and that he is unable to articulate those claims because of their 8 complexity. Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014). For the reasons already 9 explained by this Court and the District Court, Plaintiff has not done so. See Doc. Nos. 6, 10 12, 15. Plaintiff’s Letter fails to raise any new facts or circumstances warranting a reversal 11 of the Court’s decision. See CivLR 7.1(i)(1) (a party seeking reconsideration must present 12 “new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were 13 not shown, upon such prior application”). 14 The remainder of plaintiff’s Letter does not require a response from the Court. 15 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that threats against the Court, the parties, counsel, or any 16 other person will not be tolerated, and will be reported to law enforcement as appropriate. 17 Notwithstanding his pro se status, plaintiff is expected to conduct himself civilly and to 18 comply with the District’s Code of Conduct which “ensure[s] that all who work within [the 19 Court] and come before it treat each other with decency, dignity and respect.” Civ.LR 2.1; 20 see also Chambers’ Rules and Civil Pretrial Procedures for the Honorable Karen S. 21 Crawford, § I. (stating the undersigned’s expectation that litigants and their counsel will 22 treat each other, and be treated by the Court, with respect and professionalism). By filing 23 suit, plaintiff submitted himself to the Court’s authority, and he must therefore abide by 24 the Court’s rules. See S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that 25 “filing an original complaint” establishes plaintiff’s consent to the Court’s jurisdiction). 26 Plaintiff is also advised that, consistent with this District’s Local Rules and this 27 Court’s Chambers’ Rules, the Court will not accept any further ex parte correspondence 28 from him. If plaintiff requires action or relief from the Court, he must present those issues ] the form of a motion to the Court and not as informal correspondence. See Civ.LR 83.9 2 ||(“All matters to be called to the judge’s attention should be formally submitted as 3 || hereinafter provided.”). 4 ORDER 5 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's renewed Motion for Reconsideration of 6 Court’s December 18, 2020 Order denying his request for counsel is DENIED. The 7 || Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enclose a copy of the District’s Local Rules, 8 ||a copy of the undersigned’s Chambers’ Rules, and three pads of 8.5” x 11” paper when 9 || sending this Order to plaintiff. 10 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: February 8, 2021 A y /; ) 12 WV GP “EEE 3 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28