Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00294-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER DICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00294-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 26)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Christopher Dickson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 14, 2019, the Court ordered that this case proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint, filed on July 26, 2018, against Defendants G. Gomez, B. Rios, and D. Martinez for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Defendants S. Duncan and N. 

Esparza, for violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and 

against Defendant Dr. Jeff Sao for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 23.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion requesting court order that CCI Tehachapi 

have Plaintiff’s legal mail delivered to Plaintiff’s cell and Plaintiff be given assistance to get to the 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

2

law library in order to litigate and prosecute this civil complaint or appointment of counsel[,]” filed 

on July 3, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) In his filing, Plaintiff asserts that he is still dealing with injuries 

sustained from the events at issue in this action and that he is unable to get from place to place 

without assistance of a cane or a wheelchair. Plaintiff further states that, on May 30, 2019, a nurse 

and five correctional officers at CCI came to his cell and confiscated his wood cane, his gel insoles, 

and his mobility vest. Then, after Plaintiff was issued another cane and mobility vest on June 6, 

2019, his new cane and mobility vest were taken by custody/medical staff members on June 24, 

2019. Plaintiff contends that, due to the fact that he does not have a cane or a wheelchair, the Court 

should either appoint counsel to represent him in this action or order CCI officials to deliver 

Plaintiff’s legal mail to his cell and give Plaintiff assistance to getting to the law library, the 

showers, and/or phone calls. 

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for appointment of counsel or, if the 

Court declines to appoint counsel, as a motion for a preliminary injunction.

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to 

represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional 

circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Neither of 

these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 

F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the 

plaintiff. Id.

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

3

However, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education, limited 

law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone establish the exceptional 

circumstances that would warrant granting a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Further, 

while the Court has ordered this case to proceed on the cognizable claims found in Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his 

claims. Finally, based on a review of the limited record in this case, it appears that the legal issues 

involved in this case are not particularly complex and that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his 

claims. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating 

exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. Consequently, 

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice.

III. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 

may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 

omitted). 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have 

before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley 

Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 

(1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear 

the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief 

[sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal 

right.”

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 07/17/19 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

4

Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 

officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 

United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 

in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 

U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969; see Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 

526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action 

in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the 

time within which the party served must appear to defend.”).

Further, in order for a court to have authority to grant the preliminary injunctive relief 

requested, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive 

relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 

Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). “The relationship between the 

preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the preliminary 

injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” Id.

In his motion, Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief against a named defendant in this 

action. In this case, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction contends that, since medical and 

custody staff members employed at California Correctional Institution, have improperly 

confiscated Plaintiff’s wood cane, his gel insoles, and his mobility vest and since he is unable to 

get from place to place without assistance of a cane or a wheelchair, the Court should order CCI

officials to deliver Plaintiff’s legal mail to his cell and give Plaintiff assistance to getting to the law 

library, the showers, and/or phone calls. However, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not 

contain any claims against any medical and/or custody staff members employed at California 

Correctional Institution. Instead, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges cognizable claims 

for excessive force, violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights in the prison disciplinary context, and 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against three correctional officers, two correctional 

lieutenants, and one physician, all of whom were employed at Kern Valley State Prison at the time 

the events at issue. (ECF No. 23.) Further, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is

not asking for relief of the same nature that it may ultimately be granted in this action. Instead, 

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 07/17/19 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

5

Plaintiff is seeking to require prison employees at CCI to provide Plaintiff with specific services –

a remedy that will not be provided if Plaintiff succeeds on the merits of his cognizable claims 

against the defendants employed at Kern Valley State Prison. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a relationship between the proposed 

preliminary injunction and the cognizable claims alleged in his Second Amended Complaint for 

the Court to have “authority to grant the relief requested.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 

F.3d at 636. Consequently, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

IV. Order and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel, (ECF No. 26), is DENIED without prejudice.

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction, (ECF No. 26), be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 

on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00294-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 07/17/19 Page 5 of 5