# (PC) Singh v. California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility

> District Court, E.D. California · May 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027778

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027778

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RAVI KUMAR SINGH, No. 1:21-cv-00139-NONE-EPG (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART; AND
13 v. DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF PRO BONO COUNSEL
14 CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FACILITY, (Doc. Nos. 1, 11, 13)
15
Defendant.
16

17
18 Ravi Singh (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
19 action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21 On March 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and
22 entered findings and recommendations, recommending that “[t]his action be dismissed” and that
23 “[t]he Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.” (Doc. No. 11 at 5.) The magistrate judge’s
24 reasoning was based in large part on the fact that plaintiff’s complaint, which generally alleged
25 medical negligence, did not allege how plaintiff was harmed by that alleged negligence, but
26 instead asserted potential harm to a third party, namely plaintiff’s cellmate. (See generally Doc.
27 No. 11.)
28 /////
1 Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and
2 recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections, along with a motion for appointment of pro bono
3 counsel, on March 29, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
4 § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed
5 the entire file, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are
6 supported by the record and by proper analysis in almost all respects. Plaintiff does not take issue
7 with the reasoning contained within the findings and recommendations; rather, in his objections,
8 plaintiff argues that he did not mean to assert claims on behalf of his cellmate but rather that he
9 was providing an example of medical negligence. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff indicates that his real
10 concern is that he was forced to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though he already
11 had health problems (including hepatitis C), and that he ended up contracting COVID-19. (Id.)
12 Plaintiff suggests that he provided allegations about these medical concerns. (Id.) The court has
13 carefully examined the record and concludes that none of the allegations asserted in the complaint
14 reveal any concerns relevant to plaintiff’s medical situation, but they do generally raise concerns
15 about COVID-19 and inadequate medical care. As a result, and in an abundance of caution, the
16 court will depart from the magistrate judge’s recommendations slightly and will grant plaintiff
17 leave to amend.
18 As to plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, plaintiff does not have a
19 constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525
20 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court
21 cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v.
22 United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).
23 However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of
24 counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
25 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
26 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
27 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
28 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
1 | complexity of the legal issues involved.” Jd. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
2 The court has reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the court is unable at this
3 | time to determine that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, it
4 | appears from his filings that plaintiff can adequately articulate claims. The issue with plaintiffs
5 | claim at present is not that he failed to adequately articulate it, but that he brought a claim on
6 | behalf of his cellmate. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro
7 | bono counsel at this time without prejudice.
8 Accordingly,
9 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2021, (Doc. No. 11), are
10 adopted in part;
11 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend!;
12 3. Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of this order to file any
13 amended complaint; and
14 4. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, (Doc. No. 13), is denied.
15 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ -
Dated: _ May 10, 2021 fe or
17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20 | | Should plaintiff elect to continue to pursue this action by filing an amended complaint, he shall
comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
21 | the Local Rules of Practice. The Amended Complaint must bear the docket number assigned to
97 | this case and be labeled “Amended Complaint.” In any amended complaint he elects to file
plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating how the conditions complained of resulted in a
23 | deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir.1980). There
can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection
24 | between a defendant's specific actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362
> (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743
5 (9th Cir.1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations
26 | are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982). Finally, Local
Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior
27 || pleading. The amended complaint will supersede the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967). Therefore, in an amended complaint, each claim and the involvement
28 | of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10027778. Public record. Not legal advice.