Dominguez v. Pratt

Background

Elijah Dominguez filed motions to consolidate this case with another case, for mandamus and quo warranto, for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and to appoint counsel. The court had previously dismissed the complaint and closed this case in a July 24 order that adopted Magistrate Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation. The court stated that Dominguez may file an amended complaint addressing the issues identified in that report and recommendation.

Motion to Consolidate

Dominguez asked the court to consolidate this case with another case before Judge Beeler to avoid confusion and conflicting evidence. The court denied the motion. It found that Dominguez did not explain why consolidation was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It also found that this case was not currently active and therefore did not need to be consolidated. In addition, the court explained that the cases could not be related or consolidated before Judge Beeler because this court presided over the lower-numbered case under the district’s local rules.

Motions for Relief, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto

The court denied Dominguez’s motions for quo warranto because, under California law, a private party may not bring that type of action without permission from the California Attorney General, and Dominguez had not indicated that he received such approval.

The court also denied the motion seeking relief from the judgment or order and the mandamus motions. Dominguez appeared to argue that Magistrate Judge Ryu lacked authority to issue the report and recommendation because he had not consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, and that the court’s later adoption of the recommendation was therefore void. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the case had been reassigned to the Article III court precisely because Dominguez had not consented to magistrate jurisdiction; after reassignment, the court independently considered the record and issued the July 24 dismissal order. The court found no error supporting relief under Rule 60 and no basis for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

The court also stated that Dominguez was not left without possible legal options. It said he could file an amended complaint, could retain counsel if he wished to pursue claims on behalf of the United States, and could appeal the dismissal order if he followed the applicable rules and deadlines.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

The court denied Dominguez’s motion to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In civil cases, appointment is discretionary and generally requires exceptional circumstances. The court considers both the likelihood of success on the merits and the person’s ability to explain 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 potential claims brought on behalf of the United States, and that the issues were not complex. It also found that Dominguez had adequately explained his claims so far. The court stated that he could not pursue those claims without a lawyer, but that this restriction did not itself require the court to appoint one. The court further noted that Dominguez had not shown good-faith efforts to retain counsel and had continued to insist on proceeding without a lawyer.

Disposition

The court denied all motions at Docket Nos. 26, 28, 29, 30, and 31.