(PC) Ramos v. Mayfield et al, No. 1:2021cv01036 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER AFFIRMING Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/9/2022. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEOBARDO ERIC RAMOS, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, Case No.: 21-cv-1036-JLT-EPG ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. MAYFIELD, et al., ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Defendants. (Docs. 10, 12) Leobardo Ramos is a state prisoner who filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff alleges that after he was removed from suicide watch, prison officers took him to a cell 19 with no surveillance, then proceeded to kick and punch him without provocation. Plaintiff was 20 eventually diagnosed with a broken back, for which he claims he was inadequately treated. As 21 such, Plaintiff brings claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical 22 needs, both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also brings a First Amendment claim 23 based in alleged retaliation for reporting the excessive force incident. The matter was referred to 24 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On September 22, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered screening findings and 26 recommendations, recommending that “[t]his case proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 27 excessive force claim against defendant Mayfield and defendant Doe,” and that “[a]ll other claims 28 be dismissed as discussed in these findings and recommendations.” (Doc. 12 at 18.) 1 1 Plaintiff filed his objections on October 4, 2021. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff’s objections asserted 2 that his deliberate indifference claims should survive because the doctor at issue failed to 3 schedule follow-up appointments after treating plaintiff. (Doc. 13 at 2.) Plaintiff also requested 4 that he be given an attorney to advise him in these proceedings. (Id.; see also Doc. 15.) The 5 magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s request for an attorney on November 30, 2021. (Doc. 16.) On 6 December 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as objections to the magistrate 7 judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) The Court has 8 reviewed both the magistrate judge’s order denying appointment of counsel and the screening 9 findings and recommendations. 10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge’s 11 non-dispositive order denying appointment of counsel, “[t]he district judge in the case must 12 consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous 13 or is contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303; Dalke v. Clark, 2021 WL 14 3783912 (E.D. Cal. 2021). Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may 15 overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm 16 conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 17 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 18 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct 19 independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 20 The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. 16), and it was not contrary to 21 law or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order, 22 (Doc. 17), are overruled. Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion 23 for appointment of pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 24 With respect to the screening findings and recommendations, the Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and 26 Local Rule 304. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 27 recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 28 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2021, (Doc. 12), are 2 1 2 adopted in full; 2. 3 4 defendant Mayfield and defendant Doe; 3. 5 6 This case proceeds on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against All other claims are dismissed as discussed in the findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2021; and 4. 7 Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied, without prejudice. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2022 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3