Sevilla v. Adams, et al.

Filing 80

ORDER Granting Attorney William L. Schmidt Twenty Days Within Which To Submit A Request For Cost Reimbursement, If Any, And Relieving Mr. Schmidt As Counsel Of Record For Plaintiff (Docs. 75 and 79 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/8/2011. (Filing Deadline: 8/1/2011)(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RONALD VICTOR SEVILLA,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00172-LJO-SKO PC
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY WILLIAM
L. SCHMIDT TWENTY DAYS WITHIN
WHICH TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR COST
REIMBURSEMENT, IF ANY, AND
RELIEVING MR. SCHMIDT AS COUNSEL
OF RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF

v.
DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

(Docs. 75 and 79)
14

/

15
Plaintiff Ronald Victor Sevilla, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
16
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 16, 2006. Pursuant to the Court’s
17
order of December 3, 2010, this action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, filed
18
May 18, 2009, against Defendants Bradish, Roscoe, Gonzales, and Bhatt on Plaintiff’s Eighth
19

Amendment medical care claims, but service of process has not been initiated.1

20
Based on Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained permanent, life-threatening blood damage
21
as a result of quinine poisoning, the Court determined that this case was appropriate for referral to
22
the Court’s Pro Bono Program and on February 16, 2011, William L. Schmidt was appointed to
23
represent Plaintiff. By that time, it appeared that Plaintiff had passed away and Mr. Schmidt was
24
directed to file a status report within ninety days regarding further proceedings. Subsequently, on
25
26
27
28

1
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Bradish and Roscoe stole his prescription medication, leaving him without
pain relievers and muscle relaxants for more than one year. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Gonzalez and Bhatt
caused him permanent, life-threatening blood damage by improperly prescribing quinine for an extended period of
time, causing quinine poisoning and, ultimately, leukemia.

1

1

April 5, 2011, Mr. Schmidt’s motion for limited discovery was granted so that the status of

2

Plaintiff’s estate and other related matters could be investigated. Mr. Schmidt filed a status report

3

on July 5, 2011.

4

In the status report, Mr. Schmidt states that he located Plaintiff’s ex-wife, who maintained

5

no contact with Plaintiff and was not aware of this lawsuit, and Plaintiff’s son, who is an inmate

6

himself and who has not contact with Plaintiff for many years. Mr. Schmidt also obtained the

7

autopsy report, which states that Plaintiff died of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, caused by

8

esophageal varices due to cirrhosis of the liver due to Hepatitis C. Mr. Schmidt had toxicology tests

9

performed on the available blood samples and the results did not show a toxicologically significant

10

concentration of quinine in Plaintiff’s blood. Given his appointment by the Court, Mr. Schmidt feels

11

he is not in the position to determine whether this matter should proceed. He, therefore, requests the

12

appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent Plaintiff’s son, whose incarceration hampers his

13

ability to make decisions and for whom there exists a conflict of interest in determining whether this

14

action should be pursued in light of his position as sole heir and the one who would benefit from

15

recovery, if any.

16

Plaintiff did not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action,

17

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th

18

Cir. 1981), and while the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), it does so only if exceptional circumstances exist, Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970;

20

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1981). In making that determination, the

21

Court evaluated, to the very limited extent possible given the stage of the proceedings, the likelihood

22

of success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

23

complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks

24

omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed

25

together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331.

26

In this case, the seriousness of Plaintiff’s claim that he sustained permanent, life-threatening

27

damage to his blood cells as a result of quinine poisoning was the motivating factor in the

28

appointment of counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s death did not factor in, as the decision to seek
2

1

counsel was made prior to the receipt of information that Plaintiff may have passed away. Upon

2

receipt of that information, the Court determined that it was in the interest of justice to continue with

3

the appointment of counsel to investigate the situation and ascertain the status of Plaintiff’s estate.

4

The Court is buried under a veritable flood of civil rights cases filed by prisoners, and in the

5

vast majority of those cases, the plaintiffs seek the appointment of voluntary counsel, often

6

repeatedly. The Court has a very limited ability to appoint counsel and it must take great care in

7

determining which cases receive counsel given the sheer volume of cases and the limited number

8

of attorneys available for appointment.

9

Based on Mr. Schmidt’s findings, the Court has determined that it cannot justify the

10

continued use of its scarce resources to pursue this matter any further. Again, the Court found that

11

the appointment of counsel was warranted in particular because of the potential merit of Plaintiff’s

12

quinine poisoning claim, which allegedly led to Plaintiff suffering from leukemia. Neither the

13

autopsy report nor the lab work suggests this claim has the potential merit the Court originally

14

thought it might, and given that information, further expenditure of the Court’s very limited

15

resources to pursue this matter is not warranted.

16
17

Therefore, the Court declines to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent Plaintiff’s son and
it HEREBY ORDERS that:

18

1.

Within twenty (20) days, Mr. Schmidt may submit a request for reimbursement of
costs pursuant to General Order 230;2 and

19
20

2.

Mr. Schmidt is relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
ie14hj

July 8, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
2

28

General Order 230, filed May 17, 1988, provides for the reimbursement of cost expenditures on a case-bycase basis.

3