Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01684/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01684-3/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

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION

(Doc. No. 24)

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

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 February 6, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) be dismissed due to its failure to 

state a claim. (Doc. No. 24.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff does not 

plausibly allege that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 4–6.) The findings and recommendations contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (14) days after service. (Id.

at 6.) On February 24, 2020, plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. No. 25.) 

/////

Case 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2
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)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 

by proper analysis.

In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s finding 

that the SAC does not allege a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to 

his serious medical needs. (See Doc. No. 25.) Instead, plaintiff argues that his inability to state 

such a claim is the result of his representing himself and not having an understanding of the law. 

(Id. at 1.) Plaintiff therefore reiterates his request for the appointment of counsel. (Id.; see also

Doc. No. 22.) However, the court has twice provided plaintiff with the legal standards applicable 

to the claims he is attempting to allege in this action. (See Doc. Nos. 13, 18.) Despite this 

guidance, plaintiff’s allegations set forth in the SAC fail to state cognizable claims against any 

defendant. With respect to plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, “[a] pro se litigant has 

no right to counsel in a civil action.” Lear v. Akanno, No. 1:15-cv-01903-DAD-JDP, 2018 WL 

3203102, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2018) (citing Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009)). No circumstances presented by plaintiff support the appointment of pro bono counsel 

here, even if such counsel willing to so serve could be identified.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 6, 2020 (Doc. No. 24) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 22) is denied; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01684-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2