Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00498-2/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

JAMESETTA GUY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANEL ESPINOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00498-AWI-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND AND 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18)

Plaintiff, Jamesetta Guy, is a state prisoner currently housed at the Central California 

Women’s Facility (“CCWF”). She is 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 January 21, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted under §1983. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff was granted thirty 

days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) On February 19, 2020, 

Plaintiff timely filed objections. (ECF No. 17.) On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.)

A. Motion to Amend

In her motion to amend, Plaintiff seeks to file a second amended complaint that includes 

allegations of injury that are specific to herself. The allegation that she seeks to include is as 

follows: “Upon my encounter with this transgender [inmate], I was sexually harassed, humiliated, 

and publicly degrated. This inmate used [her] state issued Dildo a sexual device holding it where 

[her] penis should be with extensive vulgar comments.” (ECF No. 18 at 2.)

Case 1:19-cv-00498-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 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

The Court will deny the motion to amend as futile. First, the Court finds facially 

implausible Plaintiff’s contention that the prison issued a dildo to a male-to-female transgender 

inmate. Second, even if the Court found Plaintiff’s contention to be plausible, the incident 

alleged by Plaintiff is insufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. “Although prisoners have 

a right to be free from sexual abuse, whether at the hands of fellow inmates or prison guards, the 

Eighth Amendment’s protections do not necessarily extend to mere verbal sexual harassment.” 

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 

1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000); Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 254–55 (9th Cir.1997) (holding 

that prison guard who engaged in “vulgar same-sex trash talk” with inmates was entitled to 

qualified immunity); Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir. 1997) (female correctional 

officers who allegedly made improper statements about plaintiff while he showered entitled to 

qualified immunity). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit “has specifically differentiated between sexual 

harassment that involves verbal abuse and that which involves allegations of physical assault, 

finding [only] the later to be in violation of the constitution.” Minifield v. Butikofer, 298 

F.Supp.2d 900, 904 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1198).

Here, Plaintiff contends that she was subjected to vulgar verbal comments and gestures by 

a fellow inmate. These contentions are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

Allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to include these contentions would thus be futile.

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend.

B. Findings and Recommendations

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

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court has 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. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the findings 

and recommendations.

As to Plaintiff’s renewed request in her objections for appointment of counsel, the request 

will be denied. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney 

Case 1:19-cv-00498-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 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

to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court 

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

In certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of 

counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a reasonable 

method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek volunteer counsel only in the 

most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, the 

district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the 

[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances for appointment of 

counsel to be present in this case. Plaintiff has been able to clearly articulate her claims and the 

facts underlying her claims. However, for the reasons set forth in the findings and 

recommendations, Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable under § 1983. Accordingly, appointment 

of counsel is not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is DENIED;

2. The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED;

3. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on January 21, 

2020 (ECF No. 16), are ADOPTED in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00498-AWI-EPG Document 19 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3