Opinion
1:21-cv-00139-NONE-EPG (PC)
08-28-2021
RAVI KUMAR SINGH, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLOSING THE CASE AND THEN TO CLOSE THIS CASE
(DOC. NOS. 15, 16)
Ravi Singh (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 10, 2021, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff's complaint, which generally alleged medical negligence, did not allege how plaintiff was harmed by that alleged negligence, but instead only asserted potential harm allegedly suffered by a third party, namely plaintiff's cellmate. (See generally Doc. Nos. 11, 14.) The undersigned also adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's request for appointment of pro bono counsel be denied. (See Doc. No. 14.) In an abundance of caution, plaintiff was nonetheless afforded 45 days to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the noted deficiencies with his complaint. (Id.) He did not do so.
Accordingly, on July 28, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that “[t]his action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction” and that “[t]he Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.” (Doc. No. 15 at 2.)
Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed his objections on August 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 16.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
As to plaintiffs request for appointment of pro bono counsel, which plaintiff included in his objections, the court previously denied a motion for appointment of counsel brought by plaintiff on May 10, 2021, (Doc. No. 14), and it appears that nothing has occurred that would change the court's analysis of that request at this time. Accordingly, for the reasons described in the court's prior order, plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel will be denied.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 28, 2021, (Doc. No. 15), are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff s request for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied;
3. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.