-RBB Goudlock v. Hernandez et al, No. 3:2008cv00204 - Document 56 (S.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 1/10/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-RBB Goudlock v. Hernandez et al Doc. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACIE LEE GOUDLOCK, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 ROBERT HERNANDEZ, et al., 16 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF NO. 50] 17 18 Plaintiff Jacie Lee Goudlock, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding 19 pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint on February 1, 20 2008, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 1]. 21 Amended Complaint on August 8, 2008 [ECF No. 7].1 22 alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when prison 23 officials’ medical response was delayed after he fell off the top 24 bunk bed in his cell. 25 claims his rights were violated when he was forced to live in He filed a First Plaintiff (Am. Compl. 3-4, ECF No. 7.) Also, Goudlock 26 27 28 1 Because the pages in Goudlock’s First Amended Complaint are not consecutively numbered, the Court will cite to this document using the page numbers assigned by the electronic case filing system. 1 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) Dockets.Justia.com 1 conditions that were inadequate in light of his medical condition. 2 (Id. at 8, 14.) 3 Although the original complaint named Defendants Hernandez and 4 Garcia, the First Amended Complaint does not; these two Defendants 5 were therefore dismissed on December 2, 2008 [ECF No. 12]. 6 September 15, 2009, United States District Court Judge Roger 7 Benitez granted Defendant Peterson’s motion to dismiss count two of 8 the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 34]. 9 Judge Benitez dismissed Defendant Cruz without prejudice because On On October 13, 2010, 10 Plaintiff failed to serve Cruz with the summons and Complaint, 11 leaving Defendant Thompson as the only remaining Defendant [ECF No. 12 48]. 13 First Amended Complaint, which is currently being briefed [ECF No. 14 52]. 15 On November 19, 2010, Thompson filed a motion to dismiss the This is the fourth time Plaintiff has asked the Court to 16 appoint him an attorney. 17 motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 5]. 18 request and dismissed the case on July 1, 2008 [ECF No. 6]. 19 case was reopened on August 8, 2008, when Goudlock filed his First 20 Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7]. 21 motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 9], which was denied 22 [ECF No. 11]. 23 motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 20], his third request, 24 which was denied for the same reasons the Court identified when 25 denying Goudlock’s second request [ECF No. 22]. 26 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed his fourth Request for Appointment of On May 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed his first The Court denied this The Three days later, he filed a second On January 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended Then, on October 27 28 2 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 Counsel [ECF No. 50].2 2 motion for reconsideration, the Court will construe this Motion as 3 one seeking reconsideration. 4 Although Plaintiff should have filed a See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff asserts the following: 5 (1) His claim is meritorious; (2) he has made a diligent effort to 6 obtain counsel; (3) Goudlock is unable to afford an attorney; (4) 7 the issues in this case are complex; (5) he has limited education 8 and does not understand court rules; and (6) Plaintiff has already 9 attempted to represent himself in this litigation and has been 10 11 unsuccessful. (Req. Appointment Counsel 1, 4, ECF No. 50.) 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides: “The court may request an 12 attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 13 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(1) (West 2010). 14 that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil 15 cases.” 16 1996) (citing Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 17 (9th Cir. 1994)). 18 appointed counsel to pursue a § 1983 claim. 19 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 20 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 21 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” 23 States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989) (discussing § 24 1915(d)); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 25 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). But “it is well-established United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. There is also no constitutional right to Rand v. Rowland, 113 Federal courts do not have the authority Mallard v. United 26 27 2 28 The Court will also cite to Goudlock’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel using the page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic case filing system. 3 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 Nevertheless, district courts have discretion, pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to request attorney representation for 3 indigent civil litigants upon a showing of exceptional 4 circumstances. 5 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 6 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th 7 Cir. 1991); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 8 1989). 9 plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation of the See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the 10 likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an 11 evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in 12 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” 13 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 14 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 15 and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.’” 16 Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (quoting Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331). 17 I. 18 Agyeman, “‘Neither of these factors is dispositive Likelihood of Plaintiff’s Success on the Merits To receive court-appointed counsel, Goudlock must present a 19 nonfrivolous claim that is likely to succeed on the merits. 20 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 21 state causes of action arising under the Constitution for 22 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and 23 violations of his right to be free from cruel and unusual 24 punishment. 25 contends that the constitutional violations occurred while he was 26 incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan State Prison (“Donovan”) between 27 June 11, 2007, and June 15, 2007. The First Amended Complaint purports to (Am. Compl. 3-4, 8, 14, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff (Id. at 1.) 28 4 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 In count one, Goudlock claims that on June 15, 2007, at 2 approximately 4:00 a.m., he fell off the top bunk bed in his cell 3 while sleeping. 4 left foot to the point that the injury needed stitches, and was 5 bleeding profusely, as well as twist[ed] [his] ankle, shav[ed] off 6 skin on [his] right thigh, and caus[ed] further damage to an 7 already damaged [s]ciatic nerve.” 8 correctional officers failed to respond to his pleas for help, in 9 violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 10 11 (Id. at 3.) unusual punishment. As a result, Plaintiff “cut [his] (Id.) He states that unknown (Id.) Plaintiff claims in count two that Defendant Peterson, a 12 registered nurse, made Goudlock wait five hours for medical 13 treatment after he arrived at Facility One Medical Clinic. 14 at 4.) 15 that Plaintiff be taken to the triage area for stitches, he was 16 unable to receive stitches because too much time had elapsed since 17 his injury. 18 adequate medical care. 19 (Id. He also contends that although Doctor Lindsey Dugan ordered (Id.) As a result, Goudlock contends he was denied (Id.) In count three, Plaintiff claims Defendants Thompson and Cruz 20 forced him to live in conditions that were inadequate for his 21 medical condition. 22 “cell 220 up” and ignored his Comprehensive Accommodation Chrono, 23 in which a physician noted that Plaintiff should be assigned to a 24 ground floor cell and a bottom bunk. (Id.; see id. at 16.) 25 claims he suffers from a “sleeping disorder” that causes him to 26 urinate in his bed at least twice per night, and as a result of 27 soaking in his urine, he developed a severe rash. 28 Plaintiff states Defendant Thompson did not attempt to contact any (Id. at 8.) Defendants placed Goudlock in 5 He (Id. at 8.) 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 superior to learn more about Goudlock’s medical conditions. 2 Defendants could have prevented his injuries if they did not ignore 3 his medical accommodation chrono. 4 (Id.) (Id.) Plaintiff alleges in count four that Defendant Cruz forced him 5 to live in inadequate conditions and condoned the constitutional 6 violations. 7 injuries and a sleeping disorder,” and showed him his medical 8 chrono, but Cruz did nothing to address Plaintiff’s medical 9 condition. 10 (Id. at 14.) Goudlock told Cruz about his “back (Id.) As discussed above, count two has been dismissed without leave 11 to amend, and all Defendants other than correctional officer 12 Thompson have been dismissed. 13 Hernandez & Garcia 3, ECF No. 12; Order Adopting Report & 14 Recommendation Granting Def. Peterson’s Mot. Dismiss 2, ECF No. 34; 15 Order Dismissing Def. Cruz Without Prejudice 1, ECF No. 48.) 16 Accordingly, the Court will only consider Plaintiff’s active claim 17 — count three against Defendant Thompson — when ruling on 18 Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel. 19 (See Order Dismissing Defs. (See id.) Two elements comprise an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 20 indifference to serious medical needs. 21 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 22 104 (1976)). 23 need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s 24 condition could result in further significant injury or the 25 “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”’” 26 omitted). 27 response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” 28 omitted). “First, the plaintiff must show a ‘serious medical Id. (citation “Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s Id. (citation The second prong “is satisfied by showing (a) a 6 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or 2 possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” 3 Id. (citation omitted). 4 With regard to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement, “[i]t is 5 undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives and the 6 conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under 7 the Eighth Amendment.” 8 (1993). 9 inmates with basic human needs, including shelter, medical care, Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officers furnish 10 and personal safety. 11 Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989)); Wright 12 v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation 13 omitted); Rideau v. Minnick, No. 09cv0296 BTM (Wmc), 2010 U.S. 14 Dist. LEXIS 64063, at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2010) (quoting 15 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982); citing Farmer 16 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). 17 prison conditions “are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of 18 the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against 19 society.” 20 Id. at 32-33 (quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago But to the extent that Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). To satisfy the requirements for an Eighth Amendment 21 conditions-of-confinement claim, “a prison official must have a 22 ‘sufficiently culpable state of mind.’” 23 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). 24 the inmate must allege facts sufficient to show that a prison 25 official’s acts or omissions deprived him of “‘the minimal 26 civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and that the defendant 27 acted or failed to act “in the face of an unjustifiably high risk Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 Specifically, 28 7 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be 2 known.” 3 Id. at 823, 836. It is too early for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s 4 likelihood of success on the merit of his claims against Thompson. 5 Defendant Thompson’s pending motion to dismiss the First Amended 6 Complaint does not address Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted. 8 Rather, the motion is based on Goudlock’s purported “express 9 attempt to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Thompson from this case.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 10 (Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 52.) 11 information, the Court cannot conclude whether Plaintiff is likely 12 to succeed on the merits. 13 552 (S.D. Cal. 1993). 14 II. Without additional factual See Bailey v. Lawford, 835 F. Supp. 550, Plaintiff’s Ability to Proceed Without Counsel 15 To be entitled to appointed counsel, Goudlock must also 16 demonstrate that he is unable to effectively litigate the case pro 17 se, in light of the complexity of the issues involved. 18 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 19 See Courts have required that “indigent plaintiffs make a 20 reasonably diligent effort to secure counsel as a prerequisite to 21 the court’s appointing counsel for them.” 22 552. 23 Goudlock claims he has attempted to obtain counsel. 24 Appointment Counsel 1, ECF No. 50.) 25 Rajan Maline, the Prison Law Office, and Latoya Redd. 26 Plaintiff attaches to his Motion a legal mail log and states, 27 “[A]ll attorneys are highlighted that I contacted.” 28 the attached mail log entitled, “R.J. Donovan State Prison Legal Bailey, 835 F. Supp. at In support of his request for court-appointed counsel, 8 (Req. He has contacted attorneys (Id. at 3.) (Id.) But in 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 Mail Program,” Plaintiff has circled only one attorney, Rajan 2 Maline. 3 letter from the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board 4 (VCGCB) denying representation. 5 whether Plaintiff contacted only these four attorneys, or whether 6 he contacted more but failed to highlight them on the attached log. 7 In any event, it appears he has made a reasonably diligent effort 8 to secure counsel prior to seeking an order appointing counsel. 9 (Id. at 8-27.) Goudlock also attaches to the Motion a (Id. at 28.) It is unclear Next, Goudlock claims he should be appointed counsel because 10 his claim is meritorious. 11 Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed 12 on the merits without additional factual information. 13 835 F. Supp. at 552. 14 counsel. 15 is not compelling because indigence alone does not entitle a 16 plaintiff to appointed counsel. 17 (Id. at 1.) As discussed above, the See Bailey, Goudlock also argues he is unable to afford (Req. Appointment Counsel 1, ECF No. 50.) This argument Further, Goudlock contends that the issues in the case are 18 complex. 19 appointed counsel if he can show “that because of the complexity of 20 the claims he [is] unable to articulate his positions.” 21 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 understands Goudlock’s claims and the relief he seeks. 23 has not shown anything in the record that makes this case 24 “exceptional” or the Eighth Amendment legal issues in it 25 particularly complex. 26 whether the appellant might have fared better with counsel). 27 difficulty Goudlock may have experienced in litigating his case (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff is only entitled to court- Rand v. Here, the Court Plaintiff See id. (explaining that the test is not Any 28 9 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 does not appear to have been caused by the complexity of the issues 2 involved. 3 See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Finally, Plaintiff claims that he has limited education and 4 does not understand court rules. (Req. Appointment Counsel 4, ECF 5 No. 50.) 6 litigation and has been unsuccessful. 7 litigant certainly would be better served with the assistance of 8 counsel.” 9 1331 (“[A] pro se litigant will seldom be in a position to Also, he has tried to represent himself in this (Id.) “[A]ny pro se Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 10 investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case.”) 11 (footnote omitted). 12 rights case, courts must construe the pleadings liberally and 13 afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. 14 Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); Ferdik v. 15 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that the 16 rule of liberal construction is especially important in civil 17 rights cases). 18 When a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil Karim-Panahi v. Los Goudlock has attempted to file documents that did not meet the 19 Court’s filing requirements, but this does not demonstrate the 20 existence of exceptional circumstances requiring counsel. 21 e.g., Notices Doc. Discrepancies, ECF Nos. 8, 10, 14, 17, 19.) 22 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is adequate in form. 23 efforts, Goudlock properly filed a motion for in forma pauperis 24 status, four motions for court-appointed counsel, an opposition to 25 Defendant Peterson’s motion to dismiss, and two notices of change 26 of address [ECF Nos. 2,4-5, 9, 20, 26, 28, 31]. 27 submitted attachments to several pleadings and organized his 28 arguments in a coherent manner, which suggests his ability to 10 (See, Through his own Plaintiff has 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 navigate the legal process. 2 1033 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding the district court did not abuse its 3 discretion in denying plaintiff counsel, in part because plaintiff 4 adequately filed a complaint and other pre-trial materials). 5 See Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, Plaintiff’s motions and responses may not match the quality of 6 pleadings that an attorney could prepare; nvertheless, their 7 overall organization is sufficient. 8 Goudlock is not in any different position than other pro se 9 litigants who have brought similar Eighth Amendment claims, and the See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 10 Court will consider this in construing his pleadings. 11 Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (explaining 12 that courts may liberally construe all pro se inmates’ pleadings). See After reviewing the record, the “exceptional circumstances” 13 14 required for court-appointed counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915(e)(1), are absent. 16 is unable to articulate his claims pro se. 17 No. CV 1:08-1443-SMM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118416, at *5 (Dec. 2, 18 2009) (citing Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525). 19 that the circumstances have changed since his last motion for 20 appointment of counsel was denied. 21 No. 22.) 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // Plaintiff has not made a showing that he See Powell v. Smith, Nor has Goudlock argued (See Mins., Jan. 29, 2009, ECF 28 11 08cv00204 BEN (RBB) 1 Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate either a 2 likelihood of success on the merits or an inability to represent 3 himself beyond the ordinary burdens encountered by prisoners 4 representing themselves pro se, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 DATE: January 10, 2011 Ruben B. Brooks United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 cc: Judge Benitez All Parties of Record 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\1983\PRISONER\GOUDLOCK204\Order re appointment of counsel.wpd 08cv00204 BEN (RBB)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
