no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action
How later courts described this case
- no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 MAURICE GODOY, Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
FOR IMMEDIATE AND PERMANENT
9 v. OR TEMPORARY ORDER FOR
INJUNCTION; DENYING MOTION
10 EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al., FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 29
12
13
14 Plaintiff, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”), filed this pro se civil rights action
15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s ex parte motion for
16 immediate and permanent or temporary order for injunction; and motion for appointment of
17 counsel. Dkt. No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES these motions.
18 BACKGROUND
19 The Court dismissed the initial complaint and the amended complaint for failure to comply
20 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) in that both complaints raised claims regarding various
21 unrelated incidents that happened over several years at various different prisons. Dkt. Nos. 9, 28.
22 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is due by December 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 28. Currently there
23 is no operative complaint, and no defendants have been served.
24 DISCUSSION
25 I. Motion for Immediate and Permanent or Temporary Order for Injunction
26 In his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff makes the following allegations. In August
27 2019, while incarcerated at Substance Abuse Training Facility, prison guards manipulated or
1 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; prison officials retaliated against him by
2 spreading false inflammatory rumors about him, such as that he was a sex offender; prison
3 officials confiscated his personal property and legal mail, and interfered with his access to the
4 courts; and the law library denied him copies. Plaintiff also complains of the medical treatment
5 provided (and not provided) by various chiropractors. Plaintiff was transferred to CSP where he
6 continues to be the target of a conspiracy amongst correctional officials to retaliate against him
7 and deny him medical care. Dkt. No. 29 at 1-9.
8 Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief declaring that correctional officials have violated his
9 federal constitutional rights and his state law rights, with the violations ranging from medical
10 malpractice, medical negligence, deliberate indifference, retaliation, due process violations, search
11 and seizure without a legal warrant, coercion, assault and battery. Dkt. No. 29 at 10-11. Plaintiff
12 seeks an injunction requiring Warden Clark and all other defendants to provide him with adequate
13 medical care, to stop all retaliatory actions, and to stop the illegal control of plaintiff’s legal
14 documents. Dkt. No. 29 at 12.
15 Plaintiff’s request for an injunction or temporary restraining order is DENIED for the
16 following reasons.
17 First, prior to granting a preliminary injunction, notice to the adverse party is required. See
18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Therefore, a motion for preliminary injunction cannot be decided until
19 the parties to the action are served. See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). Here,
20 the amended complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and no parties have yet been
21 served. A TRO may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s
22 attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified
23 complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before
24 the adverse party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s
25 attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the
26 reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
27 Plaintiff has failed to satisfy either of these requirements. With respect to the first requirement,
1 Plaintiff has since been transferred out of that facility. His conclusory allegation that there is a
2 || conspiracy amongst prison officials at different facilities is insufficient to show an immediate and
3 irreparable injury, loss or damage will result before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.
4 Second, a preliminary injunction is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as
5 || that to be finally granted. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d
6 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, it is not yet certain what relief this action seeks because there is no
7 operative complaint.
8 Accordingly, the request for injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
9 II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff has renewed his request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 29.
10 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may
lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Sves., 452 U.S.
11 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to
counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952
12 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under
§ 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional
13 || circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiff has previously requested appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 19. The Court denied
14 || this initial request for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances; and because it
was unclear at that time if plaintiff had presented cognizable claims, there being no operative
2 15 complaint, and because plaintiff had ably prosecuted this case thus far, having filed at least three
2 motions seeking various types of relief. Dkt. No. 20. Plaintiff's renewed request for appointment
16 |! of counsel (Dkt. No. 29) does not indicate that plaintiff’s circumstances have changed
significantly. There is still no operative complaint, and plaintiff continues to ably prosecute this
case. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances that warrant
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's motion requesting appointment of counsel is DENIED for lack
4 18 || of exceptional circumstances. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte
appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such
19 |) appointment.
20 CONCLUSION
21 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs ex parte motion for immediate and permanent or
22 || temporary order for injunction; and motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED. Dkt. No. 29.
23 This order terminates Dkt. No. 29.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 Dated: December 26, 2019
26 Amped 5 Ml
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
27 United States District Judge
28
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
MAURICE GODOY,
7 Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG
Plaintiff,
8
9 Vv. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
10 EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12 . .
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
13
= District Court, Northern District of California.
14
That on December 26, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
15
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
16
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
17
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
Z 18
19 Maurice Godoy ID: V83154
Corcoran State Prison
20 || 4001 King Avenue
Cocoran, CA 93212
21
22 Dated: December 26, 2019
23
Susan Y. Soong
24 Clerk, United States District Court
25
26 »
By:
27 Nikki D. Riley, Dapguty Clerk to the
28 Honorable HAYW®OD S. GILLIAM, JR.