# (PC)Lewis v. Allison

> District Court, E.D. California · February 26, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059508

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 26, 2024
- **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/10059508

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing “under color of state law”
- discussing “under color of state law”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10
DERRICK JEROME LEWIS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00914-EPG (PC)
11
Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12 TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR FAILURE
v. TO STATE A CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE
13 TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) AND TO DENY
KATHLEEN ALLISON, ET AL., MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14 (ECF NOS. 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21)
Defendants.
15 AND

16 ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
17 (ECF No. 11) AND
TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
18
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
19 THIRTY DAYS
20
Plaintiff Derrick Jerome Lewis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this
21
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing
22
this action, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), on June 16, 2023. (ECF
23
No. 1). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on June 22, 2023. (ECF No. 8).
24
Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 11), and several motions for
25
injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21).
26
Plaintiff’s Complaint is now before the Court for screening. Plaintiff alleges that
27
defendants committed identity theft, fraud, forgery, and violated his Fourteenth Amendment
28
1 Due Process and Equal Protection rights. (ECF No. 1 at 4–7.) Plaintiff names about 40
2 unrelated individuals, government entities, and businesses such as Apple, Inc. and Chase Bank
3 as Defendants.
4 As multiple courts have held in similar cases Plaintiff has filed in the past, this Court
5 finds that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims. Further, Plaintiff’s history of litigation
6 in this Court counsels against providing leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court
7 recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and accompanying
8 motions for injunctive relief denied. Finally, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion for
9 appointment of counsel.
10 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
11 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
12 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
13 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
14 legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
15 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
16 § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Additionally, as Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF No. 11), the
17 Court may screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires that the Court
18 dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the action is either frivolous or malicious, or
19 “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
20 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
21
Plaintiff names Kathleen Allison, identified in parenthesis as “Global Tel Link” and
22
also as employed as Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
23
(CDCR);1 North Kern State Prison (NKSP); Amanda Benson, a Sacramento Public Defender;
24
and Victoria Ibarra, a corrections officer. (ECF No. 1 at 3). In addition, Plaintiff attaches a
25
sheet titled “Defendants (continued from page 1)” and lists 36 additional defendants that
26
include municipalities such as City of Sacramento, government agencies such as CDCR and
27

28 1 Kathleen Allison appears to be a former Secretary of CDCR.
1 California Department of Treasury, and private businesses, such as J.P. Morgan Chase Bank,
2 T. Mobile, and Apple, Inc. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff also attaches another sheet titled “Defendants
3 (continued from page 2)” following Claim 1 and before Claim 2, naming 40 individuals,
4 agencies, and businesses, most of which are duplicative. (Id. at 5). It is not clear whether these
5 are meant to supplement the preceding list of Defendants, or if these are Defendants associated
6 with one of the claims.
7 To the extent that Plaintiff’s allegations can be discerned, Plaintiff alleges for Claim 1
8 that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated and identifies the issue as
9 “identity theft, fraud, forgery, etc.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). In support of that claim, Plaintiff states
10 that on April 1, 2023, at NKSP, Plaintiff had an inmate account opened while he was at the
11 Sacramento County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges that Kathleen Allison opened the
12 account at CDCR before he was sentenced to his current prison term, and that Kathleen
13 Allison, Amanda Benson, Victoria Ibarra, Jeffrey Macomber, and Xavier Becerra “all had
14 access to and benefited from [Plaintiff’s] property,” which Plaintiff identifies with an ILBN
15 number.2 (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was “awarded through the courts with federal
16 lawsuits” that he filed, that he has different CDCR numbers, and that his identity “was used
17 fraudulently to give and receive funds” by multiple entities named as defendants. (Id.)
18 As to exhaustion, Plaintiff states that “admirative relief is not sufficient because these
19 criminal acts took place while [Plaintiff] was out of custody,” while he was in jail.
20 For Claim 2 under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause, Plaintiff checks
21 the box “other” for the issue involved, and identifies the issue as “fraud, identity theft, bank
22 fraud, stolen property.” (Id. at 6). He then alleges that various individuals, from Governor of
23 California Gavin Newsom to prosecutor Ann Marie Schubert to federal judge Kimberly J.
24 Mueller, to the City of Sacramento and CDCR, all failed to protect his rights under the law,
25 while his name and identity “have all been used fraudulently by Kathleen Allison to illegally
26 obtain, transfer, and steal [Plaintiff’s] federal lawsuit funds, along with” other defendants. (Id.)

27
2 The Court is not familiar with this abbreviation and Plaintiff does not explain what the
28
abbreviation or the alpha-numeric digit sequence that follows it represent.
1 Plaintiff further alleges that Kathleen Allison “illegally stole and sold” Plaintiff’s property
2 while doing business with various corporations such as Apple and Chase Bank, and that “a
3 federal investigation will uncover numerous crimes committed” against him. (Id.)
4 For Claim 3 under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, Plaintiff again
5 identifies the issue involved as “identity theft, fraud, bank fraud.” (Id. at 7). In support of this
6 claim, Plaintiff alleges that the State of California failed to protect his rights as a citizen when
7 on April 1, 2023, NKSP and Kathleen Allison opened his inmate account, and that a Global Tel
8 Link transaction between CDCR and Kathleen Allison allowed other defendants to have access
9 to Plaintiff’s money. (Id.) Plaintiff concludes his allegations with “Gavin Newsome [sic] is
10 aware of what is happening to me!!!” (Id.)
11 Plaintiff seeks 90 billion dollars in monetary compensation and damages. (Id. at 8). He
12 is also asking for control of all his accounts at various corporations, “as well as any of
13 [Plaintiff’s] money or property owned by Kathleen Allison, and North Kern State Prison, or
14 any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, prisons or properties owned
15 through [Plaintiff’s] name, and identity.” (Id.)
16 III. LITIGATION HISTORY
17 As this Court previously noted in Lewis v. Sacramento Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:20-CV-
18 509-KJM-KJN PS, 2020 WL 1503430, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020), report and
19 recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1976218 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020), Plaintiff has a history
20 of filing cases with this court wherein he requests a waiver of the filing fee—triggering the
21 court’s duty to screen under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. A review of these cases shows Plaintiff often
22 files suit against numerous defendants (usually in the double-digits), alleges some facet of
23 “identity theft” or “computer fraud” style claims, and requests inordinate amounts of damages
24 (ranging from the hundreds-of-millions to billions of dollars). These cases include the
25 following:
26 1) 2:16-cv-3029 GEB-GGH (dismissing $15 billion damages complaint against
52 defendants for failure to state a claim, despite leave to amend);
27
2) 2:16-cv-3049-MCE-EFB (dismissing $12 billion damages complaint against
28
48 defendants for failure to state a claim and failure to amend);
3) 2:17-cv-934-TLN-EFB ($500 million in damages against 17 defendants
1
dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to amend);
2 4) 2:17-cv-939-GEB-DB ($400 million claim against 12 defendants dismissed
for failure to state a claim and failure to amend);
3
5) 2:20-cv-00332 JAM-AC (dismissing frivolous claims for $5 million, including
4
identity theft, without leave to amend);
5 6) 2:20-cv-330-KJM-EFB ($5 million identity-theft claims against 7 defendants
described as “conclusory” and dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure
6
to amend);
7 7) 2:20-cv-346-TLN-EFB (dismissing $550 million identity-theft claim for
8 failure to state a claim and failure to amend);
8) 2:20-CV-509-KJM-KJN PS (dismissing without leave to amend of $795
9
million dollar claim for “fraud, wire transfer, and computer privacy act”
10 because Plaintiff’s complaint “consists almost entirely of fanciful and
delusional allegations”);
11
9) 2:22-cv-00856-KJM-CKD (dismissing claims for $100 million against 56
12 defendants, including private corporations such as Venmo, for “fraudulent
transfer of funds and account info”);
13
10) 2:22-cv-00876-TLN-KJN (dismissing without leave to amend claims of
14 identity and wire fraud for $295 million in damages against 111 separate
defendants for failure to state a claim, noting that “the complaint consists
15
almost entirely of the same non-specific and fanciful allegations that are seen
16 in his prior cases”);
11) 2:23-cv-01595-KJM-KJN (recommending dismissal of “vague and
17
conclusory” claims for $100 billion against 76 defendants, including Kathleen
18 Allison and several federal judges, for stolen property, fraud, and identity theft
under Fourteenth Amendment due process; property is identified by ILBN
19 numbers);
20 12) 2:23-cv-02144-KJM-KJN (dismissing claims for $12 billion for stolen
property and identity against 62 defendants, including Kathleen Allison, for
21
failure to state a claim and failure to amend; property is identified by ILBN
22 numbers);
23 These cases have all been dismissed at the screening stage.3
24
25

26
3 Despite these repeated dismissals, Plaintiff does not appear to have three that qualify under the
27 so-called “three strikes provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because most of these cases were filed when
Plaintiff was not incarcerated. Moreover, the Court has not conducted a sufficient comparison between
28
these cases and the present case to determine if collateral estoppel or issue preclusion would apply.
IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1
A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
3
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
4
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
5 subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
6
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
7 shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
8 other proper proceeding for redress . . . .
9 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides
10 a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
11 393–94 (1989).
12 To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
13 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
14 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.
15 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (emphasis added); see also Marsh v. County of San
16 Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of state law”). In most
17 cases, “person” means the same thing under § 1983 as in ordinary use. A prison is not “a
18 person” under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989)
19 (“’[P]erson” as used in § 1983 likewise does not include a State.”); Allison v. California Adult
20 Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (“[S]tate agencies which are but arms of the state
21 government are not ‘persons’ for purposes of the Civil Rights Act.”)
22 A plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the
23 deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77. In other words, there must be an actual
24 connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have
25 been suffered by the plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658,
26 691, 695 (1978).
27
28
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and
2
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
3
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
4
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
5
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
6
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
7
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While factual allegations
8
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57.
9
Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts from which the court can draw a
10
reasonable inference that any defendant violated federal law. Jones v. Community Redev.
11
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s complaint lacks the “facial plausibility”
12
of “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
13
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil
14
Procedure 9 requires much more specificity as to claims predicated on fraud which is pleaded
15
by Plaintiff. Under Rule 9(b), a plaintiff who alleges fraud or mistake must “state with
16
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Plaintiff has not clearly done so
17
in relation any of the defendants listed on multiple pages in his Complaint. On this basis alone,
18
Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.
19
C. Improper Defendants
20
Additionally, Plaintiff names the state of California and various state agencies as
21
defendants, such as CDCR, NKSP, California Department of Treasurer, and others. “The
22
Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its
23
agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.” Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public
24
Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment, and the related
25
doctrine of sovereign immunity, prohibits federal courts from hearing a Section 1983 lawsuit in
26
which damages or injunctive relief is sought against a state, its agencies (such as CDCR) or
27
individual prisons, absent “a waiver by the state or a valid congressional override . . . ” Dittman
28
1 v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which
2 seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, ‘an arm of the state,’ its
3 instrumentalities, or its agencies.” See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d
4 928, 957 n.28 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citations omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S.
5 961 (2003). “The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with
6 respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court . . . .” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025–26
7 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v. Cal.
8 Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding California Department of
9 Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
10 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s putative claims against the State and state agencies are barred by the
11 Eleventh Amendment.
12 Plaintiff also names various banks and private companies as defendants. However, to
13 state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal
14 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting
15 under the color of state law. See West, 487 U.S. at 48; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934
16 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff does not plead any facts that would demonstrate that these companies
17 acted under the color of state law and therefore, they are improperly named as Defendants.
18 D. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
19 The equal protection clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated
20 alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); Hartmann v.
21 California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan,
22 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). To
23 state a claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants intentionally discriminated against him based
24 on his membership in a protected class, Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123 Furnace, 705 F.3d at
25 1030, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), Thornton v. City of St. Helens,
26 425 F.3d 1158, 1166–67 (9th Cir. 2005), Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th
27 Cir. 2001), or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a
28 rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agr., 553
1 U.S. 591, 601–02 (2008), Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000), Lazy Y
2 Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008), North Pacifica LLC v. City of
3 Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).
4 There are no facts alleged suggesting that any defendant intentionally discriminated
5 against Plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class or that similarly situated
6 individuals were intentionally treated different. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state an equal
7 protection claim against any defendant.
8 E. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
9 The United States Supreme Court held that “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of
10 property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of
11 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy
12 for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Thus, where the state
13 provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, only authorized, intentional deprivations
14 constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. An authorized deprivation is one
15 carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v.
16 McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985).
17 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that the alleged deprivations were
18 authorized. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that his property was stolen, i.e., that it was an
19 unauthorized deprivation. The California Legislature provided a remedy for tort claims against
20 public officials in the California Government Code §§ 900, et seq. Plaintiff does not allege he
21 sought redress in the state system for the alleged deprivation of his property. For this reason,
22 plaintiff cannot sue in federal court on the claim that the state deprived him of property without
23 due process of law.
24 V. LEAVE TO AMEND
25 Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely
26 give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” However, the Court has discretion to deny
27 leave to amend if “it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation
28 of other facts” or is otherwise futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000);
1 AmeriSourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). As the
2 Supreme Court has held:
3 “[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts
alleged are “clearly baseless,” . . . a category encompassing allegations
4
that are “fanciful,” . . . “fantastic,” . . . and “delusional[.]” . . . As those
5 words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when
the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
6
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available
7 to contradict them.”
8
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint consists almost
9
entirely of fanciful and delusional allegations, amending which would be futile.
10
As Plaintiff’s litigation history shows, the Court repeatedly advised Plaintiff of pleading
11
requirements of Rule 8 and provided Plaintiff with relevant legal standards involving the same
12
claims (see, e.g., Lewis v. Baker, No. 2:23-cv-01595-KJM-KJN, 2023 WL 8358485, at *2 (E.D.
13
Cal. Dec. 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 345993 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30,
14
2024) (dismissing Plaintiff’s due process claim for property and identity theft against Kathleen
15
Allison after providing relevant legal standards and granting Plaintiff an opportunity to amend
16
his complaint, as stated in 2023 WL 6813042); Lewis v. NBC Universal, No. 2:16-CV-3029-
17
GEB-GGH PS, 2017 WL 118010, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2017) (providing both Rule 8 and
18
Rule 9 pleading standards to Plaintiff)). In his previous lawsuits, Plaintiff has been repeatedly
19
advised that his claims against the state and state agencies are barred by sovereign immunity,
20
and that he needs to plead facts that show defendants acted under color of state law. Plaintiff
21
nevertheless fails to allege any plausible claim and continues to file lawsuits consisting of
22
fanciful and delusional allegations against defendants who are immune to such suits. Moreover,
23
when the Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend in previous cases, Plaintiff either
24
failed to file an amended complaint, filed a complaint that still failed to state a claim, or
25
responded with “inappropriate and unsupported remarks” regarding the judge granting Plaintiff
26
leave to amend and other members of this Court. Lewis, 2023 WL 8358485, at *3. For these
27
reasons, the Court concludes that granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile.
28
VI. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
1
2 On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF
3 No. 11). Plaintiff states that he seeks to enjoin Defendants named in this action from “stealing,
4 fraud, identity theft, sale of stolen property and constitutional rights violations;” that he is
5 entitled to redress he seeks; that he has zero assets, no money coming into his possession, and
6 no income, and therefore, unable to afford the costs of this action or to employ counsel. (Id.)
7 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
8 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d
9 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to
10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of
11 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may
12 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at
13 1525.
14 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek
15 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
16 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
17 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
18 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
19 This case does not present exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment
20 of counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for counsel.
21 VII. ORDERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
22 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cognizable claims and that
23 granting leave to amend would be futile. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate exceptional
24 circumstances that warrant appointment of pro bono counsel.
25 In addition, Plaintiff filed several motions for injunctive relief, ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14
26 (with accompanying affidavit ECF No. 15), 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, but given that the Court does not
27 find any cognizable claims, the Court will recommend dismissal of these motions for the same
28 reasons.
1 The Court will take no action on Plaintiff's Notice containing purported Last Will and
2 || Testament (ECF No. 19).
3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
4 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case;
5 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
6 It is further RECOMMENDED:
7 1. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
8 state a claim;
9 2. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21)
10 be DENIED.
11 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
12 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district
13 || judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within
14 || thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
15 || written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
16 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections
17 || within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
18 || 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir.
19 |] 1991)).
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
221! Dated: _ February 26, 2024 [Je hey
23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10059508. Public record. Not legal advice.