Mullin v. DeLorenzo
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-04589
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Mullin v. DeLorenzo, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed a duplicative civil-rights case, denied counsel motions without prejudice, and directed transfer of pleadings.
Tyghe James Mullin: this action was dismissed, his complaint and specified filing materials were transferred to the earlier-filed action, and his motions for appointed counsel were denied without prejudice.
What happened
Mullin v. DeLorenzo was a civil-rights case brought by Tyghe James Mullin, who represented himself while in custody. He alleged that San Jose police officers used a canine during his arrest in May 2022.
The court found that this case repeated claims in two other pending cases involving the same incident. It allowed Mullin to pursue only the earlier-filed case, Mullin v. Santa Clara County, and ordered the clerk to transfer the complaint and certain filing materials there.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed this action as duplicative and abusive. She denied Mullin’s two requests for appointed counsel without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Mullin v. DeLorenzo · No. 3:23-cv-04589
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Tyghe James Mullin, who was in custody and represented himself, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative pleading was his second amended complaint. Mullin also filed two motions asking the court to appoint counsel.
Court’s analysis
Because Mullin was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officers, the court screened the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.
The court did not reach the merits of Mullin’s excessive-force allegations. Instead, it determined that this action duplicated two other pending actions: Case No. 23-cv-04399-AMO (PR) and Case No. 23-cv-06110-AMO (PR). The court stated that all three cases arose from the same alleged incident, in which San Jose Police Department officers used a canine to arrest Mullin. It also noted that Mullin had two cases filed under the court’s permission to proceed without paying the filing fee against the same defendants, repeating the same claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court treated the duplicative litigation as abusive and subject to dismissal.
The court identified Case No. 23-cv-04399-AMO (PR) as the earlier-filed action that Mullin could continue. It noted that the court had reopened that case, vacated its earlier dismissal, and reinstated the complaint. The court also stated that it would review the transferred materials in a separate written order in that earlier-filed case.
Appointment of counsel
The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. It may seek volunteer counsel for a person unable to pay only in “exceptional circumstances,” considering both the likely success of the claims and the person’s ability to explain the claims in light of the legal issues. Because the proceedings were at an early stage and the court had not yet reviewed Mullin’s claims in the earlier-filed action, it found it premature to assess those circumstances.
Disposition
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed this action as duplicative and abusive under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court denied Mullin’s two motions for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It ordered the clerk to transfer Mullin’s second amended complaint, his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and his prison trust-account statement to Case No. 23-cv-04399-AMO (PR), then close this file. The order terminated Docket Nos. 12 and 13.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.