Opinion
2:18-cv-02921-TLN-JDP (HC)
04-25-2023
RAFAEL GODINEZ, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED
ECF NO. 75
JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief and to appoint counsel, ECF No. 75, arguing that his health and circumstances of incarceration require appointment of counsel. In the alternative, he requests that, pending his transfer to the San Diego County Jail, an injunction be granted ordering that he be (1) housed in the jail's “central” facility and (2) given unimpeded access to the law library there. Id. at 2.
As for appointment of counsel, plaintiff has thus far shown an ability to effectively litigate his claims. And while I am not unsympathetic to plaintiff's health issues, many prisoners in similar situations have been denied appointment of counsel. As a practical matter, counsel in prisoner cases is difficult to obtain and, as such, I will seek counsel only when I am persuaded that representation is essential. I will deny plaintiff's request.
I will also deny plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. At the time of this motion's filing, he has not been transferred to the San Diego County Jail and any issues with law library access at that institution are, at this point, hypothetical. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”). Plaintiff may renew his motion for injunctive relief if and when he encounters law library access problems at the San Diego County Jail.
Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 75, is DENIED.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 75, be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.