Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00261/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00261-1/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

BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY W. LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00261-JDP (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF Nos. 2 & 5

SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:

(1) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 

SUBJECT TO A 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS OR 

PARTIES;

(2) FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ECF No. 1

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 case against ten defendants and asserts 

numerous unrelated claims. ECF No. 1. For the reasons stated below, the complaint cannot 

proceed in its present form. I will deny plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and grant 

his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2 & 5.

Case 2:23-cv-00261-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 04/05/23 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

2

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff’s twenty-eight-page complaint is deficient because it contains eight unrelated 

claims. For instance, his first claim alleges that defendants interfered with his legal mail. ECF 

No. 1 at 5-6. His second claim bears no relation to the first and alleges that defendants violated 

Case 2:23-cv-00261-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 04/05/23 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

3

his Eighth Amendment rights by falsely imprisoning him with an unwarranted rules violation 

report. Id. at 6-8. By way of final example, plaintiff’s seventh claim implicates a loss of personal 

property during a cell transfer. Id. at 19-20. Unrelated claims against more than one defendant 

belong in separate actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against 

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”). 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that contains only related claims. He is advised 

that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 

693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will 

need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 

220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each 

claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint 

should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 

Additionally, I will deny plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not 

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. 

See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 

The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The 

court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d 

at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek volunteer counsel only in 

exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, “the 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.” Rand, 113 

F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 

present here. The allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated. Further, 

plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits. For these reasons, 

Case 2:23-cv-00261-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 04/05/23 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

4

plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 2, is denied without prejudice. I may revisit this 

issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. If plaintiff later 

renews his request for counsel, he should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances that 

he believes justify appointment of counsel in this case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2, is DENIED without 

prejudice.

3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint. If he does not, I will issue findings and recommendations narrowing the complaint to 

related claims. 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00261-TLN-JDP Document 9 Filed 04/05/23 Page 4 of 4