Dominguez v. Pratt

Background

Elijah Dominguez filed five motions: a motion to consolidate this case with another case; two motions seeking writs of mandamus and quo warranto; a filing seeking relief from a judgment or order; and a motion to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court had previously adopted Magistrate Judge Ryu’s recommendation, dismissed the complaint, and closed the case. The court stated that Dominguez could file an amended complaint addressing the issues identified in that recommendation.

Motion to Consolidate

The court denied the motion to consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Dominguez did not explain why consolidation was warranted, and the case was not currently active. The court also held that, even if both cases were active, cases must first be related before they can be consolidated. Under the district’s local rules, the lowest-numbered case handles a motion to relate cases and presides over the cases if the motion is granted. Because this case had the lower number, the requested consolidation could not occur before the other judge.

Mandamus, Quo Warranto, and Relief from the Earlier Order

The court denied the motions at Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, and 30. It held that Dominguez could not bring a quo warranto action as a private party without approval from the California Attorney General, and the record did not show that he had received that approval.

The court also found that relief from the earlier judgment or order and a writ of mandamus were unwarranted as a matter of law. Dominguez appeared to argue that Magistrate Judge Ryu lacked authority to prepare the recommendation because he had not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, making the later dismissal invalid. The court explained that the case was reassigned to the district court precisely because Dominguez had not consented. After reassignment, the district court independently reviewed the record and issued the dismissal order. The court found no error supporting the requested relief and stated that preparing a recommendation later adopted by the district court did not provide a basis for relief from judgment or mandamus.

The court also rejected Dominguez’s assertion that denying the motions would leave him without legal recourse. It stated that he could file an amended complaint and could appeal the dismissal if he followed the applicable rules and deadlines.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

The court denied the motion to appoint counsel. Appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances, including consideration of the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to present the claims in light of their complexity.

The court found no exceptional circumstances. It noted that the case was closed, that it was too early to fully assess the likelihood of success on Dominguez’s claims brought on behalf of the United States, and that Dominguez could not pursue those claims without a lawyer. The court also found that the issues were not complex and that Dominguez had adequately presented them so far. It further stated that Dominguez had not shown good-faith efforts to retain counsel and that his inability to proceed without a lawyer did not itself require the court to appoint one.

Disposition

The court denied all motions at Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 29, 30, and 31. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.