Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00727/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00727-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TUNSTALL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0727 LKK EFB P

vs.

M. VEAL, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2007, by order and findings and recommendations, the

court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. That order explained the

pleading’s deficiencies and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint correcting those

deficiencies. The recommendations portion of the court’s August 29, 2007, findings and

recommendations recommended that plaintiff’s September 6, 2006, motion for injunctive relief

be denied. Plaintiff filed objections on September 17, 2007, and requested appointment of

counsel. On September 26, 2007, over plaintiff’s objections, the assigned district judge adopted

this court’s recommendation and denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Therefore,

plaintiff should have filed his amended complaint, but has failed to timely do so.

Case 2:06-cv-00727-LKK -EFB Document 52 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court first turns to the request for appointment of counsel contained in plaintiff’s

September 17, 2007, objections. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request counsel voluntarily to represent

such a plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The court finds that there are no

exceptional circumstances in this case. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel is

denied.

In an abundance of caution, the court will sua sponte grant plaintiff a final extension of

time within which to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to timely

file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, contained within his September 17,

2007, objections is denied; and

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with this court’s August 29, 2007,

order within thirty days. Failure to timely file the amended complaint will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: October 24, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00727-LKK -EFB Document 52 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2