Dotson v. Doctor

Filing 23

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations, (2) DENYING Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and (3) DISMISSING Action, Without Prejudice But Without Leave to Amend, for Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/28/2015. CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TRACY LEE DOTSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
DOCTOR,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00093-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER (1) ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (2) DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL, AND (3) DISMISSING ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE BUT WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983
(Docs. 20, 21, and 22)

15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Tracy Lee Dotson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 27, 2013. This action was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20

On May 28, 2014, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

21 counsel and dismissed his complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
22 1915A. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, and on December 31, 2014, the
23 Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action
24 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Id. Plaintiff filed
25 timely objections on January 27, 2015. Local Rule 304(b).
26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a

27 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings
28 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Plaintiff’s objections

1 present no grounds for relief from the findings and recommendations. The Magistrate Judge
2 recognized Plaintiff’s stated challenges regarding his ability to litigate this action but the record is
3 devoid any indication that Plaintiff has a meritorious claim for relief under section 1983, and he is
4 not entitled to the appointment of counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
5 (Doc. 21, 4:9-5:2.) Furthermore, in an effort to temper the harshness of dismissal, the Magistrate
6 Judge recommended dismissal without leave to amend in this action but without prejudice. (Id.,
7 fn. 4.)
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10
11

full;
2.

12
13

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth again in his objections,
is denied;

3.

14
15

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 31, 2014, is adopted in

This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim under section 1983, without
prejudice but without further leave to amend in this action; and

4.

16

This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 28, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2