Rios v. Paramo et al

Filing 104

ORDER: (1) Denying 89 Motion for Default Judgment; (2) Denying 95 Motion for Order re: Service; and (3) Denying 97 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/11/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)

CARLOS RIOS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER:

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

15

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO.
89);

Defendants.

16

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
ORDER RE: SERVICE (ECF NO. 95);
AND

17
18
19

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF NO.
97)

20
21
22
23

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 89.)

24

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion Regarding Service. (ECF No. 95.) On July 1,

25

2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 97.) Having read

26

and considered the moving papers, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

27

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment; DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Regarding

28

Service; and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice.
1
14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility

3

(“RJD”), commenced this action on April 28, 2014 by filing a Complaint and motion for

4

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On August 14, 2014, the Honorable

5

William Q. Hayes granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and,

6

following an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and

7

1915A(b), directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the Complaint on Plaintiff’s behalf. (ECF

8

No. 5.)

9

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

10

on October 8, 2014. (ECF No. 20.) Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary

11

Judgment on November 24, 2014, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing

12

Plaintiff failed to exhaust all of his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No.

13

34.) On the same date, Defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint,

14

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 35.) On September 1,

15

2015, Judge Hayes granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion for Partial

16

Summary Judgment, granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and

17

denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

18

(ECF No. 63.)

19

On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF

20

No. 64.) In the FAC, Plaintiff brings claims against thirteen staff members at RJD, alleging

21

they engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to threaten and harass him, in violation of his state

22

and federal constitutional rights and privileges, in retaliation for Plaintiff having filed a

23

previous civil rights lawsuit in this district and prison grievances. (See id.) Plaintiff asserts

24

federal legal claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, in addition to a

25

claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Id. at ¶¶ 54-59.) Plaintiff

26

seeks money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. at pp. 28-30.)

27

On January 15, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,

28

pursuant to Rule 56, again arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust all of his administrative
2
14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)

1

remedies prior to filing suit (ECF No. 74), and a Motion to Dismiss the FAC pursuant to

2

Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 73). The Court issued a Report and Recommendation to Judge

3

Hayes on both motions on July 15, 2016. (ECF No. 98.) This Report and Recommendation

4

and related objections are currently pending before Judge Hayes.

5

II.

ANALYSIS

6

A.

7

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Federal

8

Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and (b). (ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff requests that the Court enter

9

default due to Defendants’ failure to plead or otherwise defend, pursuant to Federal Rules

10

Motion for Default Judgment

of Civil Procedure 8(d), 11(c), and 12(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), and (f). (Id. at 1.)

11

The entry of default under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper

12

“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead

13

or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

55(a). Under Rule 12, Defendants timely served a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s FAC.

15

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; see also ECF No. 71. Accordingly, entry of default is improper.

16

Although titled a Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff also seeks to strike

17

Defendants’ replies in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion

18

to Dismiss the FAC as untimely, as well as sanctions under Rule 11. However, Defendants’

19

replies were timely filed. (See ECF Nos. 75, 85, 86.) The replies were due no later than

20

March 15, 2016, and were filed on the docket on March 11, 2016, with Certificates of

21

Service indicating they were “caused to be mailed in the Office of the Attorney General’s

22

internal mail system” to Plaintiff on that date. (See id.) To the extent Plaintiff received

23

the replies later than March 15, 2016, he suffered no prejudice as no response to the replies

24

was permitted. Accordingly, the Court declines to strike the replies. See Shame on You

25

Prods., Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks, 120 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1145-46 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (declining

26

to strike late filed replies absent evidence of actual prejudice); Civ. L.R. 5.2. Because the

27

filings were timely, and Plaintiff does not assert any other grounds for sanctions under Rule

28

11(c), the Court finds sanctions are unwarranted.
3
14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)

1

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED.

2

B.

3

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting an order instructing the Clerk

4

to serve any and all further orders or judgments with a Proof of Service and via U.S.

5

Certified First Class Mail with return receipt. (ECF No. 95.) Plaintiff argues that

6

Defendants are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to obstruct Plaintiff’s access to the

7

courts, and that Defendant Paramo and his subordinates have taken adverse actions against

8

Plaintiff in other cases which have resulted in irreparable injury. (Id. at pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff

9

contends that irreparable injury is likely in this case absent a court order. (Id. at 2.)

Motion For Order Regarding Service

10

Upon review of the Motion and docket, the Court finds Plaintiff has not

11

demonstrated that irreparable injury is likely to result in this case absent a Court order

12

instructing special service. There is no indication that Plaintiff has failed to receive any

13

Court order or other filing served in this case.1 Moreover, in the case Plaintiff cites as an

14

example of irreparable injury, Rios v. Paramo, Case No. 15-cv-01331-BAS (RBB) (S.D.

15

Cal.) (“Habeas Case”), any alleged injury was reparable. (See Habeas Case, ECF Nos. 31,

16

32.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s preemptive Motion requesting an order

17

for special service.

18

C.

19

On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting the Appointment of Counsel.

20

(ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, argues that

21

appointment is necessary for the following reasons: (1) he is unable to afford counsel; (2)

22

the issues involved in the case are complex; (3) his ability to investigate the facts, conduct

23

discovery, and cross-examine witnesses is limited; (4) his case has merit; (5) his ability to

24

Motion to Appoint Counsel

25
1

26
27
28

This is in contrast to another case cited by Plaintiff, Rios v. Paramo, Case No.
13-cv-02455-WQH (JMA) (S.D. Cal.) (“Rios II”), in which Plaintiff claimed he had not
received a specific court order. (See Rios II, ECF Nos. 42, 46.) The court therefore
instructed that particular order, and the order granting the request, be sent via U.S. Certified
First Class Mail with return receipt. (Id. at ECF No. 46.)
4
14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)

1

understand English is extremely limited and he lacks education; (6) he has a mental illness

2

and learning disabilities that would make it difficult for him to represent himself; and (7)

3

he has limited access to the law library as an Extended Outpatient Program inmate. (Id.)

4

Plaintiff attaches to his Motion a General Chrono placing him on the institution’s Learning

5

Disabled list due to a reading disability, psychiatry notes, and prior requests for assistance

6

of counsel. (Id. at Exh. 1.)

7

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. Palmer v. Valdez, 560

8

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Districts courts have discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

9

1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing

10

of exceptional circumstances. Id; see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

11

1991).

12

consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to

13

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id.

14

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). “Neither of these

15

considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. (citing Wilborn v.

16

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must

17

Plaintiff has litigated this case for over two years without assistance of counsel. In

18

that time, Plaintiff has demonstrated a more than sufficient ability to articulate his claims

19

and understand the arguments, as demonstrated by his oppositions and objections to

20

Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for partial summary judgment. (See ECF No.

21

41, 46, 57, 62, 82, 83, 100.) Although the legal issues in this case are not complex, the

22

number of defendants and claims make prosecuting the case more complicated. However,

23

Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate an ability to distinguish between the defendants and to apply

24

relevant law to a variety of facts. Moreover, the need for discovery to develop the facts

25

does not automatically qualify the issues in the case as complex. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

26

1331.

27

While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff may suffer from mental illness, Plaintiff

28

has not provided the Court with any evidence that his mental illness is causing a current
5
14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)

1

inability to understand court orders or sufficiently articulate his claims, or that his status as

2

an Extended Outpatient Program inmate is preventing him from filing timely motions and

3

responses. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

4

Although some of his claims may be exhausted and sufficiently pleaded, Plaintiff has not

5

yet survived a motion for summary judgment on the merits. See Garcia v. Smith, No.

6

10cv1187 AJB(RBB), 2012 WL 2499003, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2012) (denying motion

7

to appoint counsel, finding that although three of the plaintiff’s claims survived a motion

8

to dismiss, “it is too early to determine the likelihood of success on the merits,” and

9

“[w]ithout more, it is not certain whether any of [the plaintiff’s] causes of action will

10

survive summary judgment”). Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the “exceptional

11

circumstances” required for the Court to appoint counsel.

12

In light of Plaintiff’s demonstrated ability to articulate his claims and failure to

13

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage, Plaintiff’s Motion for the

14

Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

15

III.

CONCLUSION

16

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

17

Judgment (ECF No. 89); DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Regarding Service (ECF

18

No. 95); and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice

19

(ECF No. 97).

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2016
_________________________
DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
6
14-cv-01073-WQH (DHB)