(PC) Rysedorph v. John
1:23-cv-00251
E.D. Cal.
Jul 2, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Amanda Rose Rubino (mother) appealed a district court decision adopting a magistrate's order modifying parenting time and child support for their child, V.R.M. [lines="6-8"].
  2. The initial permanent orders allocated parenting time primarily to mother, providing father with gradual increases, including four overnights every fourteen days by July 2020 [lines="8-10"].
  3. Father later requested equal parenting time and modifications to the holiday schedule, along with a reduction in child support based on the increased parenting time [lines="11-13"].
  4. The magistrate approved many of father's requests, transitioning to an equal parenting time schedule by summer 2024 and reducing father's child support obligation accordingly [lines="14-17"].
  5. Mother petitioned for review, arguing that the magistrate failed to include sufficient findings regarding the best interests of the child when modifying parenting time [lines="18, 48-49"].

Issues

  1. Did the district court err in adopting the magistrate's findings, specifically regarding father’s monthly income for calculating child support? [lines="27"].
  2. Did the magistrate make sufficient findings to support the modification of parenting time in line with the child's best interests? [lines="48"].

Holdings

  1. The court affirmed the magistrate's finding that father earned $8,447 per month for child support calculation, citing sufficient support in the record for this conclusion [lines="35"].
  2. The court reversed the order modifying parenting time due to insufficient findings about the child's best interests and remanded for reconsideration and proper factual findings [lines="91"].

OPINION

JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH v. JOHN, et al.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM (PC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 2, 2024

ECF No. 44

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(ECF No. 44)

Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph (“Plaintiff“) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff‘s second amended complaint against Defendants Le and Banerjee for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‘s motion to appoint counsel, filed July 1, 2024. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff states that there are multiple exceptional circumstances present in this case that preclude Plaintiff from adequately presenting, litigating, and ultimately pursuing his goal of settling this case without the assistance of legal counsel. As there are many claims that Defendants deny, extensive documentary discovery, depositions of prison officials, and access to witnesses Plaintiff can no longer reach will most likely be necessary in order to prove those claims. Plaintiff has no idea how to do this stuff. It is nearly impossible for one who is unlettered in the law to argue issues regarding expert witnesses, personal involvement of multiple defendants, the complex defense of qualified immunity, and the denial of Plaintiff‘s accommodations under federal disability statutes. Plaintiff lacks experience or education of almost any legal principles, issues, and methods. Plaintiff only recently obtained a GED. Plaintiff suffers from multiple mental and physical disabilities that push the proper handling of such a complex case even further out of reach, including attention deficit disorder, major depressive disorder, many complications of his celiac disease, and impaired dexterity of his dominant hand. Plaintiff has sought to obtain the assistance of counsel from multiple attorneys, and all of them have either declined to assist or have not responded. (Id.)

Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff‘s motion, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, , rev‘d in part on other grounds, , and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). . However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). .

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Court has considered Plaintiff‘s request, but does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed almost daily by prisoners suffering from serious mental and physical disabilities who must also conduct legal research, obtain discovery, and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel and with limited access to the law library. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff‘s complaint was screened and found to state cognizable claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff‘s claims are likely to succeed on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff‘s motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 44), is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2024

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Read the detailed case summary