Moralez v. Davis
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-07860
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Moralez v. Davis, Judge Illman dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend and denied Moralez’s motion to appoint counsel.
Rudolph Moralez must file a second amended complaint within 28 days if he wishes to continue the case; the defendants remain involved unless the case is later dismissed.
What happened
In Moralez v. Davis, state prisoner Rudolph Moralez alleged that prison officials failed to distribute face masks, causing him to become infected with Coronavirus. The court had previously allowed him to amend his complaint after finding that his original allegations did not support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court said Moralez needed to identify specific events, describe his resulting medical condition, and explain what each defendant did or failed to do. His amended complaint identified only the warden and generally blamed the prison medical-care system, without describing the warden’s specific conduct. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint but allowed another amendment.
The court denied Moralez’s request for appointed counsel because civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to counsel, the issues were not complex, and he could present his claims adequately. Judge Robert M. Illman ordered any second amended complaint filed within 28 days and warned that failing to amend could result in dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Moralez v. Davis · No. 5:20-cv-07860
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
Rudolph Moralez, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants failed to distribute face masks and that he became infected with Coronavirus as a result. His original complaint sought relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court had dismissed that complaint with leave to amend, explaining that the allegations did not support an Americans with Disabilities Act claim but might support an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983 if properly pleaded.
Screening standard
Because Moralez was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. To state a § 1983 claim, Moralez had to allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law.
The court explained that an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim requires allegations showing a serious medical need and that an official actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court had instructed Moralez to identify specific events, describe the medical condition resulting from his Coronavirus infection, identify the defendants who denied his requests for a face mask, and explain how each named defendant violated his rights.
Ruling on the amended complaint
The court found that Moralez had not followed those instructions. In the amended complaint’s body, he identified only the warden as a defendant and stated generally that the warden was responsible for inadequacies in the prison’s medical-care system. He did not describe the warden’s specific conduct. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.
The court ordered Moralez to file a second amended complaint within 28 days after the order was served. It required the filing to use the caption and civil case number from the order and to include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint, so Moralez had to include all claims he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to amend within the deadline could result in dismissal of the case.
Motion to appoint counsel
Moralez also moved for appointed counsel. The court stated that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case and that appointed counsel may be requested for a person unable to afford counsel only in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances depend on the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to present the claims without a lawyer, considering the complexity of the issues.
The court found that Moralez could present his claims adequately because the issues were not complex. It therefore denied the motion to appoint counsel. The order also stated that Moralez was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.