Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02343/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02343-11/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

JAMES L. BROOKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2343 DFL EFB P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 23, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint

without seeking leave of court to do so. On September 27, 2006, defendant Rohlfing filed an

answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint. Once an answer has been filed, a party may amend a

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to amend nor a stipulation to amend the complaint

signed by all parties. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will therefore be stricken, and this action

will proceed on the complaint filed June 11, 2005.

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

Case 2:03-cv-02343-JAM-EFB Document 61 Filed 12/05/06 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

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

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). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel

will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of a certified law student. A certified law

student “may engage in the following activities on behalf of a nongovernmental client

only with the approval and under the direct and immediate supervision and in the personal

presence of the Supervising Attorney or the Supervising Attorney’s designee.” See Local Rule

83-181 d(2). The court will deny plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, as explained

above, and for the foregoing reasons will also deny plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a

certified law student. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s October 23, 2006, amended complaint is stricken;

2. Plaintiff’s November 13, 2006, request for the appointment of counsel is denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s November 13, 2006, request for the appointment of a certified law student

is denied.

DATED: December 4, 2006.,

Case 2:03-cv-02343-JAM-EFB Document 61 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2