Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00015/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00015-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MAQUINALES,

CDCR # T-05865 Civil

No. 

13cv0015 CAB (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS

CARRENO, SANGHA, VON LINTIG,

RUDDY AND MILLER;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL; AND

(3) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE; N. LAMONT;

ROSE HERRERA; CORRECTIONAL

SERGEANT TRUILLO; DR. KO,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 2, 2013, Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley

State Prison located in Coalinga, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On April 16, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. (ECF

No. 8 at 6-7.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0015-dny csl & serve FAC.wpd 1 12cv3064 IEG (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-00015-CAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 05/02/13 Page 1 of 4
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

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff was also cautioned that any

“Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed

to have been waived.” (Id. citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

On April 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), along with a

Motion to Appoint Counsel . (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff no

longer names Carreno, Sangha, Von Lintig, Ruddy or Miller as Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff has

waived his claims against these Defendants and they are dismissed from this action. King, 814

F.3d at 567. 

II.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil

action. The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however,

unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept.

of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district

courts are granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be

exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of 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.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and

both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

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

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

III.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)

obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0015-dny csl & serve FAC.wpd 2 12cv3064 IEG (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-00015-CAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 05/02/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte

dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are now sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is

entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in

[IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United

States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and

dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6)

motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119

(S.D. Cal. 2007).

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Carreno, Sangha, Von Lintig, Ruddy and Miller are DISMISSED

from this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these Defendants from the docket.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

(ECF Doc. No. 10) is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

3. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF

No. 9) upon Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form

285 for each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0015-dny csl & serve FAC.wpd 3 12cv3064 IEG (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-00015-CAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 05/02/13 Page 3 of 4
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

this Order, the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP (ECF No. 8), and certified

copies of his First Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each

Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s

as completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal

according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. 

Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and summons

upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

4. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted

to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary

determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits,” Defendants are required to respond). 

5. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service. 

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2013

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\CAB\13cv0015-dny csl & serve FAC.wpd 4 12cv3064 IEG (JMA)

Case 3:13-cv-00015-CAB-BLM Document 11 Filed 05/02/13 Page 4 of 4