Shteynberg v. Sammartino

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 1, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01827
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDOLF SHTEYNBERG, Case No. 21-cv-01827-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTIONS TO 14 JUDGE JANIS SAMMARTINO, APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF Nos. 3, 6, 15 Defendant. 10);

16 (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR 17 HEARING IN JUDGE’S CHAMBERS (ECF No. 8); AND 18

19 (3) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW 20 CAUSE (ECF No. 4) ON OR BEFORE 21 FEBURARY 18, 2022 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 In 2017, Plaintiff Rudolf Shteynberg brought two actions, one against the San Diego 25 County Jail Sheriff’s Department Medical Team1 and another against the “Sheriff’s 26 Department,”2 over which United States District Judge Janis Sammartino presided. 27 1 Shteynberg v. San Diego Cnty. Jail Sheriff’s Dep’t Med. Team, 3:17-cv-01098-JLS-KSC. 28 1 Plaintiff filed multiple motions for appointment of counsel, which were all denied by the 2 court.3 The court dismissed both actions.4 More than three years after the two actions were 3 dismissed, Plaintiff brought the present action against Judge Sammartino. (Compl., ECF 4 No. 1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, on or before November 18, 2021, why 5 his present action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 6 Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). 7 Plaintiff moves for an appointment of court-appointed counsel (ECF Nos. 3, 6, 10) 8 and a hearing in chambers (ECF No. 8). The Court finds the motions suitable for 9 determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 11 12 II. MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 Plaintiff has filed three duplicative requests for court-appointed counsel. (ECF Nos. 14 3, 6, 10.) “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. 15 Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal 16 courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. 17 United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. 18 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 19 District courts have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to “request” that an 20 attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 21 See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A 22 finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least 23 an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of 24 the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues 25 26 3 Shteynberg v. San Diego Cnty. Jail Sheriff’s Dep’t Med. Team, 3:17-cv-01098-JLS-KSC, ECF 27 Nos. 19, 35, 51, 64, 67, 77; Shteynberg v. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3:17-cv-02149-JLS-KSC, ECF No. 6. 4 Shteynberg v. San Diego Cnty. Jail Sheriff’s Dep’t Med. Team, 3:17-cv-01098-JLS-KSC, ECF 28 1 involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 2 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 For the reasons stated in the Court’s OSC (ECF No. 4), Plaintiff is not likely to 4 succeed on the merits of any claim he brings against Judge Sammartino. Having reviewed 5 the record, the Court does not find any exceptional circumstances that would warrant 6 appointing him counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to 7 appoint counsel are DENIED. (ECF Nos. 3, 6, 10.) 8 9 III. MOTION FOR HEARING IN CHAMBERS 10 Plaintiff moves for a hearing in chambers. (ECF No. 8.) The Court may resolve 11 motions on the papers submitted and without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 12 Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). Based on the record, the Court does not find that an oral argument is 13 necessary. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a hearing in chambers. 14 (ECF No. 8.) 15 16 IV. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 17 In the Court’s Order dated October 28, 2021, the Court explained that Plaintiff’s 18 claims lack merit and required Plaintiff to file a written brief stating why the present action 19 should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4.) 20 Plaintiff was warned that his failure to do so will result in the Court dismissing the action. 21 (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed a written brief explaining why his claims are not barred by 22 judicial immunity or why this Court can grant the relief that he seeks. Although Plaintiff 23 has filed multiple motions for appointment of counsel and for hearing in chambers, those 24 motions do not comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 4.) 25 The Court renews the Order to Show Cause and ORDERS Plaintiff to respond, in 26 writing, why his case should not be dismissed for reasons explained in the Court’s October 27 28, 2021 Order. (ECF No. 4.) 28 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 3, 6, 10) and 3 || Plaintiff's motion for a hearing in chambers (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff is ordered not to file 4 further duplicative requests for court-appointed counsel or hearing in chambers. 5 On or before February 18, 2022, Plaintiff shall RESPOND to the Court’s Order 6 || to Show Cause (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff is warned that a failure to respond will result in 7 || the Court dismissing this action. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 / □ 11 DATED: February 1, 2022 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _A.