(PC) Ramos v. Mayfield et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER AFFIRMING Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/9/2022. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEOBARDO ERIC RAMOS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 21-cv-1036-JLT-EPG
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
MAYFIELD, et al.,

ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL

Defendants.
(Docs. 10, 12)
Leobardo Ramos is a state prisoner who filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

Plaintiff alleges that after he was removed from suicide watch, prison officers took him to a cell

19

with no surveillance, then proceeded to kick and punch him without provocation. Plaintiff was

20

eventually diagnosed with a broken back, for which he claims he was inadequately treated. As

21

such, Plaintiff brings claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical

22

needs, both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also brings a First Amendment claim

23

based in alleged retaliation for reporting the excessive force incident. The matter was referred to

24

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

25

On September 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered screening findings and

26

recommendations, recommending that “[t]his case proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

27

excessive force claim against defendant Mayfield and defendant Doe,” and that “[a]ll other claims

28

be dismissed as discussed in these findings and recommendations.” (Doc. 12 at 18.)
1

1

Plaintiff filed his objections on October 4, 2021. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff’s objections asserted

2

that his deliberate indifference claims should survive because the doctor at issue failed to

3

schedule follow-up appointments after treating plaintiff. (Doc. 13 at 2.) Plaintiff also requested

4

that he be given an attorney to advise him in these proceedings. (Id.; see also Doc. 15.) The

5

magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s request for an attorney on November 30, 2021. (Doc. 16.) On

6

December 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as objections to the magistrate

7

judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) The Court has

8

reviewed both the magistrate judge’s order denying appointment of counsel and the screening

9

findings and recommendations.

10

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge’s

11

non-dispositive order denying appointment of counsel, “[t]he district judge in the case must

12

consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous

13

or is contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303; Dalke v. Clark, 2021 WL

14

3783912 (E.D. Cal. 2021). Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may

15

overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm

16

conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50

17

F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126

18

F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct

19

independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

20

The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. 16), and it was not contrary to

21

law or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order,

22

(Doc. 17), are overruled. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion

23

for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

24

With respect to the screening findings and recommendations, the Court has conducted a

25

de novo review of the case in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and

26

Local Rule 304. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and

27

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly,

28

1.

The findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2021, (Doc. 12), are
2

1
2

adopted in full;
2.

3
4

defendant Mayfield and defendant Doe;
3.

5
6

This case proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against

All other claims are dismissed as discussed in the findings and recommendations
issued on September 22, 2021; and

4.

7

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied, without
prejudice.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 9, 2022

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3