Godoy v. Brown
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-06650
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Godoy v. Brown, Judge Gilliam denied Maurice Godoy’s requests for immediate injunctive relief and appointment of counsel because the required conditions were not shown.
Maurice Godoy and the defendants named in his civil-rights case. This order resolved only Godoy’s requests for injunctive relief and appointment of counsel, not the underlying allegations.
What happened
In Godoy v. Brown, Maurice Godoy, a self-represented state prisoner, asked the court for immediate temporary or permanent relief concerning alleged inadequate medical care, retaliation, property and legal-mail problems, and interference with court access.
The court noted that Godoy’s earlier complaints had been dismissed because they combined unrelated incidents, and that no operative complaint had yet been filed or served on any defendant. It also found that the request for immediate relief did not meet the requirements for notice-free emergency relief and that the requested relief was uncertain because the case had no operative complaint.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied both motions. He denied the request for injunctive relief and denied appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances; the counsel denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted.
The detailed version
- Godoy v. Brown · No. 4:18-cv-06650
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 26, 2019
Background
Maurice Godoy, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed his initial and amended complaints because they asserted claims about unrelated incidents occurring over several years at different prisons. The court had allowed him to amend again, but no operative complaint existed and no defendants had been served.
Godoy’s motion sought an immediate and permanent or temporary injunction. He alleged that prison officials had failed to provide adequate medical care, retaliated against him, spread false rumors, confiscated property and legal mail, interfered with his access to the courts, and participated in a conspiracy across facilities. He requested declarations that officials had violated federal and state law and an injunction requiring adequate medical care, an end to retaliation, and an end to interference with his legal documents.
Godoy also renewed his request for appointment of counsel. The court had previously denied that request because there were no exceptional circumstances, the existence of legally valid claims was unclear without an operative complaint, and Godoy had been able to litigate the case himself.
Injunctive Relief
The court denied the request for an injunction or temporary restraining order. It explained that a preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party, but no party had been served. A temporary restraining order without notice requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can respond, as well as a written certification by the applicant’s attorney about efforts to provide notice and the reasons notice should not be required.
The court found that Godoy had not satisfied either requirement. It noted that he had been transferred from the facility involved in some of his allegations and that his conclusory allegation of a conspiracy among officials at different facilities did not show immediate and irreparable harm before the defendants could respond. The court also concluded that it was not yet clear what final relief the case sought because there was no operative complaint. It therefore denied the request for injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that a civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel unless losing the case could result in loss of physical liberty. Under the statute governing appointment of counsel for people unable to afford it, appointment is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances.
The court found that Godoy’s renewed motion did not show a significant change in circumstances. There was still no operative complaint, and Godoy continued to litigate the case effectively. The court therefore denied appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances. It stated that this denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own at a later date if the circumstances warranted it.
Disposition
The court denied Godoy’s ex parte motion for immediate and permanent or temporary injunctive relief and denied his motion for appointment of counsel. The order terminated the motion listed as Docket No. 29. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.