Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01531/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01531-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1531-Dismiss FAC -1- 08cv1531

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE HAMILTON,

CDCR #T-33081,

Civil No. 08-1531 WQH (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. No. 8];

and

(2) DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

AND AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) &

1915A(b)

vs.

L. ROBLES, et al., 

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On August 18, 2008, Plaintiff, Eugene Hamilton, a state inmate currently incarcerated at

Salinas Valley State Prison located in Soledad, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated

by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 5].

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01531-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/09 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1531-Dismiss FAC -2- 08cv1531

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously sua sponte

dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). See Nov. 5, 2008 Order at 8-9. Nonetheless, the Court

granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of

pleading identified by the Court in its Order. Id. at 9. On December 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed a

First Amended Complaint, along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 8].

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 8]

Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil

action. However, the Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case,

unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v.

Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

district courts do have discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may

be exercised only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of 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.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and

both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice at this time, because as discussed

below, neither the interests of justice nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of

counsel in this case. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d

at 1017.

III. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

A. Standard

As stated in the Court’s previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act obligates the

Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who

are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial

Case 3:08-cv-01531-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/09 Page 2 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1531-Dismiss FAC -3- 08cv1531

release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP

or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim,

or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and

1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2));

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing

an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection

1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, the Court’s

duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived

the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 2122

(2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

Case 3:08-cv-01531-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/09 Page 3 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1531-Dismiss FAC -4- 08cv1531

In the Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff was informed that his Complaint failed to comply

with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nov. 5, 2008 Order at 4. Plaintiff was

further informed that many of his claims arose from incidents that fell outside the venue of the

Southern District of California. Id. at 4-6. Finally, Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment claims were dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could

be granted. Id. at 6-8. Plaintiff was given leave to file an Amended Complaint so that he could,

at the very least, attempt to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court.

However, instead of correcting any of these issues, Plaintiff simply filed what he called

a “First Amended Complaint” which is identical to his original Complaint. Thus, for all the

reasons set forth in the Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be

dismissed. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is frivolous.

A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims to be frivolous

under 1915(e)(2)(B) because he failed to attempt to comply with the Court’s previous Order. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED without

prejudice;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and

§ 1915A(b). Moreover, because the Court finds amendment of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims would

be futile at this time, leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d

336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further

amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp.

1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim containing an

arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment

would be futile.”) (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Case 3:08-cv-01531-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/09 Page 4 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1531-Dismiss FAC -5- 08cv1531

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01531-WQH-BLM Document 10 Filed 01/05/09 Page 5 of 5