United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No.
Shauntae Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
September 13, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued
findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this
action for failure to state a cognizable section 1983
claim. (ECF No. 19.) Those findings and
recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice
that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen
(14) days after service. (Id. at 13.) On October 7,
2019, after the expiration of the deadline, Plaintiff filed
his objections. (ECF No. 20.)
objections, Plaintiff states that he “totally
disagrees” with the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendations, and that he should have been provided with
an attorney to help him express his claims. Plaintiff then
sets forth conclusory allegations regarding the merits of his
claims, states that his mental health care is now at the
highest level, and for that reason argues that the Court
should either appoint counsel to assist him or allow this
case to proceed to discovery. (Id.)
respect to Plaintiff's request for counsel, Plaintiff is
informed that he does not have a constitutional right to
appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland,
113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev'd in part on
other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998),
and the court cannot require an attorney to represent
plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain
exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary
assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1).
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the
Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious
and exceptional cases. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must
evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and]
the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
Court has considered Plaintiff's request for the
appointment of counsel, but does not find the required
exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that
Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made
serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to
relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with
many similar cases filed by prisoners proceeding pro
se while receiving mental health treatment almost daily.
These prisoners also must conduct legal research and
prosecute claims without the assistance of counsel.
at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a
determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
merits. Given Plaintiff's failure to state a claim thus
far, the Court cannot find any likelihood of success on the
Court has otherwise reviewed Plaintiffs objections, but finds
no basis warranting rejection of the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations. As discussed in the findings
and recommendations, Plaintiffs allegations, which are
conclusory at best, demonstrate at most a difference of
opinion between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the
appropriate course of medical treatment. Such a difference of
opinion does not amount to deliberate indifference.
Plaintiffs remaining objections otherwise assert his
disagreement with the Magistrate Judge's findings, but
provide only conclusory allegations in support. As such, the
Court finds these objections unpersuasive.
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review
of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
including Plaintiffs objections, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are
supported by the record and by proper analysis.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff s request for counsel, (ECF No. 20), is denied;
findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2019,
(ECF No. 19), are adopted in full;
action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff s
failure to state a claim upon ...