(PC) Leen v. Montejo
2:20-cv-02231
E.D. Cal.Dec 28, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Dovie Dewdrop Leen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a § 1983 complaint naming eight defendants alleging multiple, distinct violations.
- Core allegations: in Aug. 2019 defendant Dr. Eusebio Montejo sexually assaulted plaintiff during a medical exam and then cut off his pain medication in retaliation after plaintiff filed a grievance.
- Other claims include: generally inadequate pain management (no specific responsible defendant identified) and retaliation threats by officer Portee for filing lawsuits.
- Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status, denied appointed counsel without prejudice, and found only two cognizable claims—Eighth Amendment sexual assault and First Amendment retaliation—against Montejo.
- The court held the other claims are unrelated and misjoined; plaintiff must elect to proceed only with the Montejo claims or file an amended complaint containing only related claims within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — sexual assault by Montejo | Montejo inappropriately touched plaintiff during an August 15, 2019 medical exam | No developed defense in the screening record | Court found a cognizable Eighth Amendment sexual-assault claim against Montejo |
| First Amendment — retaliation by Montejo (cutting pain meds) | After plaintiff reported the assault, Montejo retaliated by stopping pain medication | No developed defense in the screening record | Court found a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Montejo |
| Joinder / unrelated claims against multiple defendants | Plaintiff asserted multiple, distinct claims in one complaint (pain-med restrictions; Portee retaliation; Montejo claims) | Not addressed substantively; joinder rules apply | Court held the claims are not sufficiently related; plaintiff must proceed only with Montejo claims or file an amended complaint with related claims |
| Appointment of counsel | Plaintiff requested court-appointed counsel | No response showing exceptional circumstances | Court denied appointment without prejudice (no exceptional circumstances shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard for requesting appointed counsel for indigent prisoners)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (court cannot compel an attorney to represent an indigent litigant)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions insufficient; require sufficient factual matter)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits)
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings)
- Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2002) (a defendant must be shown to have personally participated in constitutional deprivation)