Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00343-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

DISMISSING THIS CASE, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

(Doc. Nos. 21, 22)

Plaintiff Adam R. Lopez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

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

On August 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel be denied and this case be 

dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under §1983. 

(Doc. No. 22.) On August 20, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to those findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 23.) 

/////

Case 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-GSA Document 24 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff’s objections are largely a recitation of the facts alleged in his second amended 

complaint. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff does add an assertion that the reason defendants Brown and 

Jackson denied him medical care was the cost involved in providing such care. (Id. at 2.) 

However, even were this additional conclusory allegation advanced in a third amended complaint,

it would not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to allege any specific facts showing that 

defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Additionally, plaintiff 

now takes issue with the medical staff as a whole at the institution of his confinement for 

allegedly being inadequate over the three-year period at issue in this action. (Id. at 3.) This 

objection is without merit, however, since plaintiff has not brought, nor could he bring, a claim 

against the medical staff as a whole at his institution of confinement.

Lastly, plaintiff objects on the grounds that despite his best efforts, he has unable to 

litigate the complex issues he seeks to raise without the appointment of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff 

does not have a constitutional right to appointment of counsel in this § 1983 action. See Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (“There is no constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in a § 1983 action.”), withdrawn on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998). “However, in ‘exceptional circumstances,’ a district court may appoint counsel for 

indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” Id. The court determines whether such 

exceptional circumstances exist by evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits and the 

petitioner’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Id. As the assigned magistrate judge noted in the pending findings and recommendations, the 

claims presented by plaintiff in this action are not particularly complex, “and a review of the 

record shows that Plaintiff is responsive, adequately communicates, and is able to articulate his 

claims.” (Doc. No. 22 at 5.) The undersigned agrees. Moreover, because the court dismisses 

plaintiff’s claims by way of this order, consideration of his likelihood of success on the merits of 

his claims also weighs against the appointment of counsel.

Case 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-GSA Document 24 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the assigned magistrate judge on 

August 5, 2019 (Doc. No. 22) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied;

3. This action is dismissed, with prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-GSA Document 24 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3