Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01737/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01737-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL QUINTERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MIKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01737-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR REMOVAL, CONSOLIDATION, AND 

COUNSEL, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO 

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 13, 14)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Daniel Quintero is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that a 

correctional officer refused to transfer his cell, directed a search of his cell that destroyed 

religious items, and placed him in another cell with a dangerous inmate.

For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for removal, 

consolidation, and counsel. (ECF Nos. 13), and gives Plaintiff one further opportunity to file an 

amended complaint that is complete in itself without reference to any other documents.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. 1).

On May 15, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state 

any cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 10).

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 6
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

Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 11).

The Court again screened Plaintiff’s complaint, again found it failed to state any cognizable 

claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint. (ECF No. 12).

On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Notice of Removal.” (ECF No. 13). In 

the motion, Plaintiff sees “removal” of his federal cases and asks the Court to consolidate his 

cases pending in the Eastern and Southern Districts of California and to appoint him counsel. 

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document that is labelled “Second Amended 

Complaint” (SAC). (ECF No. 14). However, the document appears to be a response to the 

Court’s screening order rather than an amended complaint. Even though it was filed on a 

standard “amended civil rights complaint” form, the form itself is largely blank. In place of 

description of claims, it states “see attached response to recommendation to file 2nd Amended 

Complaint,” (ECF No. 14 at 3), which appears to be a reference to the Court’s second 

Screening Order (ECF No. 12). Attached to the amended complaint form is a handwritten 

statement (ECF No. 14 at 5), with section titled “Amended Response to Section (B)” (ECF No. 

14 at 5) and has “Res. To Item (C)” (ECF No. 14 at 6), which seem to respond to Section “B. 

Linkage Requirement and Supervisory Liability” (ECF No. 12 at 6), and Section “C. Failure to 

Protect” (ECF No. 12 at 8) in the second Screening Order, respectively.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Removal, Consolidation, and Counsel

1. Notice of removal

In his “Notice of Removal,” Plaintiff asserts he has grounds for removal of his federal 

cases, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446. (ECF No. 13 at 7). This statute allows defendants to remove a 

civil action pending in state court to federal court. (“A defendant or defendants desiring to 

remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court . . .”). 

However, Plaintiff’s case is already in federal court. Therefore, removal is unnecessary. 

Plaintiff’s motion for removal is thus denied.

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 6
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. Consolidation

“District Court judges have ‘broad discretion’ regarding the assignment or reassignment 

of cases.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir. 1991). “If actions before the court involve 

a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters 

at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid 

unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1)–(3); see also L.R. 123(a) (“both actions 

involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same 

Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort . . .”) “For 

convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate 

trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Plaintiff identifies three cases he has pending in the Eastern District of California and 

one case in the Southern District of California:

1) Quintero v. Lemon, 1:23-cv-01196-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.), alleging that in July of 

2022, Plaintiff was left without power in his cell for several days; the complaint has 

not yet been screened.

2) Quintero v. Lemon, et al., 1:23-cv-01233-KES-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal.), alleging that 

Defendant Oxborrow confiscated and destroyed property from Plaintiff’s cell, then 

lied on the report to conceal the seizure and destruction his property. The case has 

been screened and, after an opportunity to amend, dismissal has been recommended.

3) Quintero v. Mike, et al., 1:23-cv-01737-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.), the instant case, 

alleging that around August of 2022, correctional officer Mike at Pleasant Valley 

State Prison refused to transfer his cell, directed a search of his cell that destroyed 

religious items, and placed him in another cell with a dangerous inmate; the case has 

been screened;

4) Quintero v. Hill, et al., 3:24-cv-01141-AJB-KSC (PC) (S.D. Cal), alleging denial 

water during transfer between prisons; the case has not been screened yet.

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 6
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

(ECF No. 13 at 4). Plaintiff asks that these cases be “joined as one case under one judge(s).” 

(Id.) Plaintiff argues that all Defendants are employed by the same corporation, trained under a 

standard policy and procedure, and are represented by the same counsel. (Id.) The jury would 

only have to be instructed once. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate will be denied because they do not involve similar 

questions of fact and the same question of law, and consolidating them would not serve the 

interests of judicial economy. These cases lack factual similarity and are in different stages of 

proceedings, with some having not yet been screened, and others awaiting dismissal. 

Consolidating them, therefore, would not promote efficiency in discovery and case 

management. Mazik v. Kaiser Permanente, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00559-DAD-JDP, 2024 WL 

3011214, at *10 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2024) (citing Lexington Ins. Co. v. Scott Homes 

Multifamily, Inc., No. 12-cv-02119-JAT, 2013 WL 4026883, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 7, 2013) 

(denying a motion to consolidate where “the cases share a common factual background in a 

general sense” but “the specific facts in both suits are completely different” because “there is 

unlikely to be a substantial duplication of effort that would be saved if both cases were being 

heard by one judge”)). 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to consolidate his federal cases.

3. Appointment of counsel

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 

952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney 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). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525.

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, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of 

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 6
5

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

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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

It is too early in the case to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits 

such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. After the review of 

Plaintiff’s pleadings, however, it appears that the legal issues involved are not extremely 

complex and that Plaintiff is able to articulate the facts underlying his claims in great detail. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for counsel without prejudice.

B. Amended Complaint

In both of its screening orders, the Court explained that if Plaintiff chooses to file an 

amended complaint, that complaint “supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in itself 

without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220.” (ECF No. 10 at 13; 

ECF No. 12 at 15). 

Although Plaintiff filed what is labelled a Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 14), 

that document appears to be a response to the Court’s screening order, rather than a true 

complaint. It does not contain all of Plaintiff’s complaint or factual allegations, and it 

references other documents. This is improper. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should include all 

claims and allegations without reference to an earlier document. 

The Court will therefore give Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended 

complaint, which must be complete in itself without reference to any earlier documents.1

In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court that he wants to stand on 

his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), in which case the Court will screen it but 

without reference to any earlier complaint or document.

\\\

\\\

1

If the Court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed, it will issue Findings 

and Recommendations to the District Judge, and Plaintiff will have an opportunity to file objections to 

those Findings and Recommendations to the extent he disagrees.

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/10/24 Page 5 of 6
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

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for consolidation, removal, and appointment of counsel (ECF 

No. 13) is DENIED.

2. Along with this Order, the Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank civil 

rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

a. File a Third Amended Complaint; or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his Second Amended 

Complaint.

4. Should Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “Third Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:23-cv-01737-EPG; this complaint must be complete in itself without reference 

to the prior or superseded pleading or another document, and

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01737-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/10/24 Page 6 of 6