Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02660/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02660-6/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 

CORNELIUS ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2660 MCE AC P 

ORDER and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 I. Introduction 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with this putative 

civil rights action challenging the quality of plaintiff’s medical care. Plaintiff commenced this 

action while incarcerated at California State Prison-Solano (CSP-SOL), but was transferred to the 

California Medical Facility (CMF) approximately October 2016. See ECF No. 24 at 3. Currently 

pending is plaintiff’s second request for appointment of counsel. For the reasons that follow, the 

undersigned denies plaintiff’s request and recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

 II. Background 

 On May 19, 2016, this action was previously dismissed without prejudice due to 

plaintiff’s failure to abide by the court’s order that he file a cognizable pleading. See ECF No. 

19. However, on September 23, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s request to reopen this case and 

directed him to file a cognizable complaint within 30 days. See ECF No. 23. Plaintiff was 

Case 2:14-cv-02660-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 6
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

thereafter granted additional time, to November 18, 2016, to file a cognizable complaint. ECF 

No. 25. The court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. Id. 

 Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended pleading. However, on November 17, 2016, 

plaintiff filed the pending motion for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 26. The court finds that 

both appointment of counsel and additional time for filing an amended pleading would be futile. 

 As this court previously observed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, upon screening 

plaintiff’s numerous initial filings, ECF No. 13 at 3: 

In the present case, plaintiff has identified as defendants Warden 

Arnold and six other prison officials and medical personnel at 

California State Prison, Solano. Plaintiff’s complaint, styled as a 

petition for writ of mandate, is difficult to decipher. However, it 

appears that plaintiff is a disabled diabetic and has filed this action 

to complain about inadequate medical care. Specifically, plaintiff 

in his complaint expresses a concern about having another stroke 

and dying. . . . . The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are so 

vague and conclusory that the court is unable to determine whether 

the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 

Following the dismissal of this case without prejudice, the court granted plaintiff’s request 

to reopen based on the following reasoning, ECF No. 23 at 2: 

Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his motion are rambling and 

disjointed, much like the several documents he initially filed in an 

attempt to commence this action. See ECF Nos. 1-2, 5-6. Plaintiff 

states that he is 80 years old and suffers from diabetes, 

hydrocephalus, a blood clot resulting from a “Wallenberg 

Syndrome stroke,” a prior heart attack, loss of vision and 

equilibrium, swollen feet, bloody toe nails, and more. See ECF 

Nos. 21, 22; see also ECF No. 18. 

It is clear that plaintiff is elderly and infirm, and sought by filing 

this action to pursue claims for deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs. The Court finds plaintiff’s advanced age and 

physical infirmities to be “both injury and circumstances beyond 

[plaintiff’s] control that prevented him from proceeding with [this] 

action in a proper fashion.” Harvest, 531 F.3d [737] at 749 [9th 

Cir. 2007]. This finding rests on construing Rule 60(b)(6) 

“sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” 

Id. Although it is not certain that plaintiff will be able to properly 

pursue this action if given another opportunity, the Court is 

persuaded by plaintiff’s recent filings that he should be accorded a 

final opportunity to do so. Plaintiff is directed to the legal 

standards for stating a deliberate indifference claim, and for clearly 

articulating his claims against specific defendants in an amended 

complaint. Without a coherent complaint, plaintiff will not be 

permitted to proceed in this action. 

Case 2:14-cv-02660-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 6
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

 In denying plaintiff’s prior request for appointment of counsel, which he filed in lieu of an 

amended complaint, the court reasoned, ECF No. 25 at 2-3: 

Plaintiff’s new filing, which is largely incoherent, seeks a “good 

mouth piece lawyer.” ECF No. 24 at 1, 2. Plaintiff states that he is 

82 years old and disabled; that he has suffered two strokes and uses 

a cane. Plaintiff also states that he is “yes a windbag but ‘character’ 

caliber standard.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff does not discuss the claims he 

seeks to pursue in this case, or the merits of his claims. . 

. . . . [T]he court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated 

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at 

this time. Advanced age and disabilities are circumstances 

common to many prisoners. More importantly, plaintiff has not 

identified the substance of his anticipated legal claims or underlying 

facts, and so the court is unable to assess the complexity of 

plaintiff’s claims or his likelihood of success on the merits of his 

claims. For these reasons, plaintiff’s request for appointment of 

counsel will be denied without prejudice. 

Nevertheless, the court will grant plaintiff additional time to file a 

First Amended Complaint. After the filing of his First Amended 

Complaint, plaintiff may again request appointment of counsel. 

The court will then have a better understanding of the complexity 

and merits of plaintiff’s claims. . . . The court will continue to 

construe plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and in the light most 

favorable to plaintiff. Plaintiff, for his part, must state the facts 

supporting his claims clearly and concisely in an Amended 

Complaint. That complaint will be screened according to the 

standards that have previously been explained to plaintiff. See ECF 

No. 13 (explaining standards for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A (b)(1) & (2)); ECF No. 23 (explaining pleading standards 

under Rule 8, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., and standards for stating a 

deliberate indifference claim). 

III. Discussion 

 Despite these admonishments, direction and additional time, plaintiff has again failed to 

file a cognizable pleading, but has instead filed another request for appointment of counsel. See 

ECF No. 26. As the court previously explained to plaintiff, district courts may seek the assistance 

of voluntary counsel only under exceptional circumstances.1 The court must evaluate plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

 

1

 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel 

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). Only in certain exceptional circumstances may the district court request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 2:14-cv-02660-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 01/04/17 Page 3 of 6
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

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to 

most prisoners do not establish the requisite exceptional circumstances. These considerations 

must be balanced with the reality that only a limited number of attorneys are available to 

represent indigent prisoners pro bono. Simply put, there are not enough attorneys to represent all 

indigent prisoners demonstrating exceptional circumstances. 

 Plaintiff’s pending request for appointment of counsel includes statements that appear to 

have been “cut and pasted” from other documents. The typewritten, cut-and-paste, provisions 

include the following, ECF No. 26 at 3: 

Plaintiff [seeks] . . . [a]n enforcement order to get petitioner 

admitted in outside Hospital for V.P. Stunt (sic) Surgery to remove 

fluid from the base of my skull from the Wallenberg stroke that left 

me paralyzed on my right side and loss of vision, equilibrium 

problems and occasional falling down . . . Thereby, I have been 

exposed to suffer in sever[e] pain for four years without medical 

case. For four years! Dr. Lori Kohler, Inmate: Neurological Illness 

reflect hydrocephalus! 

. . . . Dr. Shlensky explained I have noncommunicating encephalitis 

which is characterized by a pre-senility symptom. Basically, 

pressure builds in the brain cavities and actually destroys brain 

tissues and if an operation is not performed by this Dr. Harold D. 

Segal Neurological surgeon [telephone number], I face a prospect 

of irreversible senility or even living death. Pro se plaintiff has had 

two [physical] (sic) strokes since the commencement of this 

litigation, and has likewise since been harassed by prison officials, 

whereupon many of his “legal” papers . . . have been lost by prison 

officials. 

 Plaintiff’s handwritten statements provide in pertinent part, id. at 26: 

To stop, Chief B. Premutter/Psy/ conspiracy threat . . . Hope you 

listen well, it’s “no” games. This isn’t any “Knieval” delimma, 

diabetic “block” permanent-911-inmate has trouble seeing a 

“neurological” surgeon, and get orthopedic boots custom made for 

chrono ill fee, optomet, denist, podiatrist, all or because the CME 

Dr. Kuersten and Dr. Mulligan /P. File “The Best Physician” Ms. 

Lior Kohler-“B-yard medical,” she my doctor. But the CME of 

Health Care Solano “denial” Pro per, Cares, All Defendant[s] at 

Solano.” 

 The court again finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances 

warranting appointment of counsel. Advanced age, poor health and medical and psychological 

disabilities are circumstances shared with many prisoners. More importantly, plaintiff has again 

Case 2:14-cv-02660-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 01/04/17 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

failed to clarify the substance of his legal claims and underlying facts in a cognizable pleading, 

and so the court remains unable to assess plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his 

claims. Even broadly construing plaintiff’s statements as attempted deliberate indifference claims 

in a putative amended complaint, they are not cognizable as framed because plaintiff is seeking 

only injunctive relief against CSP-SOL defendants. These claims were rendered moot when 

plaintiff was transferred to CMF. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir.2001) 

(explaining that “when a prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually become moot as 

to conditions at that particular facility”). If plaintiff has similar new claims against his current 

CMF medical providers, he must allege them in a new action. 

 For these reasons, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

 The undersigned further finds that granting plaintiff an additional opportunity to file a 

cognizable pleading would be futile. “Leave to amend may be denied if a court determines that 

‘allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the 

deficiency.’” Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting 

Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv–Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986)). “A 

district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v.CDCR, 

707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(“Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). Due to 

the proven futility of according plaintiff additional guidance and opportunity to file a cognizable 

pleading, the undersigned recommends dismissal of this case without prejudice. 

 IV. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 17, 2016 motion for 

appointment of counsel, ECF No. 26, is DENIED. 

 Additionally, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

Case 2:14-cv-02660-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 01/04/17 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 4, 2017 

Case 2:14-cv-02660-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 01/04/17 Page 6 of 6