(PC)Gipbsin v. Sanddu et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/4/2019 DISMISSING Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 11 ) with leave to amend; Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order; and DENYING Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10 ). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 2:19-CV-1276-KJM-DMC-P

SANDDU, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 11)

19

and Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10).

20
21

I. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

22

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

23

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

25

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

26

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

27

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

28

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
1

1

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

2

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

3

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

4

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

5

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

6

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

7

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

8

and conclusory.

9

As discussed above, Rule 8 requires a complaint contain a short and plain

10

statement of the claim. Plaintiff’s complaint refers to nearly 200 pages of attached documents

11

which purportedly support the factual allegations against the defendants. This pleading method

12

does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8(a) that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and

13

directly. To the contrary, plaintiff’s complaint would require the court to comb through 204

14

pages of documents in order to determine whether plaintiff has stated any claims upon which

15

relief can be granted. It is for plaintiff – not the Court – to formulate his claims in a way that

16

satisfies the rules. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is cautioned

17

that failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified herein may result in dismissal

18

of the entire action. See Local Rule 110.

19
20
21

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

22

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist.

23

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the

24

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935

25

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

26

A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success

27

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the

28

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is
2

1

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the

2

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment

3

of counsel because:

4
5
6
7

. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to
articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not
of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it
extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.
Id. at 1017.
In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

8

circumstances. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the pleading requirement

9
under Rule 8. For that reason, as currently pleaded, there is no likelihood of success on the
10

merits. Further, Plaintiff’s complaint seems to raise claims of alleged Eighth Amendment

11
violations related to medical treatment. These claims are similar to those raised by numerous pro
12
13

se plaintiffs. There is no indication that there is an exceptional component to Plaintiff’s specific
claims such to justify the appointment of counsel. For these reasons, at this time, Plaintiff’s

14
motion for appointment of counsel cannot be granted.
15
16
III. CONCLUSION
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED with

19
leave to amend;
20
2.

Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date

21
of service of this order; and
22
3.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.

23
24
25
Dated: October 4, 2019
26

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3