Felix v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Daniel Joseph Fidel Felix, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Santa Clara. He sought declaratory relief and damages. The court stated that his requests to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed separately. Felix also filed two motions seeking appointment of counsel.

Screening and Claims

The court conducted the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or its officers or employees. Under that screening statute, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under state law. Felix named “Unidentified Santa Clara County Authorities” as the defendant. The court found that the complaint did not describe specific acts by specific state actors, did not identify the rights allegedly violated, and generally referred to official duties and government misconduct. The complaint cited 18 U.S.C. § 241, but the court explained that this is a federal criminal statute that does not create a private right to sue. Apart from that citation, the complaint did not identify another federal law, statute, or constitutional provision or allege a violation of one.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that there is generally no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case unless the litigant may lose physical liberty. Appointment of counsel for an indigent civil litigant is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that Felix’s indigency and lack of experience did not distinguish him from other prisoner-plaintiffs, and that the absence of a cognizable claim did not support appointment of counsel. In the discussion, the court denied the motion without prejudice and stated that it could appoint counsel later if circumstances warranted.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend. Felix was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint on the court’s form, using the required case caption and case number and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The order states that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that omitted claims and defendants would no longer be part of the case.

The order further states that failure to file an amended complaint or notice within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice. In its conclusion, the court states that Felix’s motions for appointment of counsel were DENIED. The order terminates Docket Nos. 7 and 9.