Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01155-8/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1155 MCE CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to file a second amended complaint. In his 

motion, plaintiff asserts he wants to add the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Office of the Director of CDCR as defendants. However, state 

agencies and departments are entitled to immunity from suits for damages arising under federal 

law by the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 181-82 (1978).

Therefore, leave to amend will not be granted. 1

 

1

 Plaintiff indicates in his motion that one of the reasons he would like to add CDCR and the 

Director as defendants is because a CDCR official has indicated to defendant Delgado that CDCR 

will not satisfy any judgment entered against her in this case. If plaintiff has a cause of action as 

to whether CDCR is responsible for satisfying judgment, that would be a claim arising under 

California law, and most likely would not accrue until CDCR refused to satisfy judgment. 

Regardless, plaintiff fails to point to any claim against CDCR or the Director upon which he can 

proceed at this time in this action.

Case 2:15-cv-01155-MCE-CKD Document 72 Filed 11/16/16 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. The court cannot require an attorney to 

represent a plaintiff who cannot pay for the attorney’s services. Mallard v. United States Dist. 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915, the court may request that an attorney represent a person unable to afford counsel. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court will make that request only when there are exceptional 

circumstances. When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court 

considers, among other things, plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). While the court is aware of the 

difficulties attendant to litigating an action while incarcerated, circumstances common to most 

prisoners do not establish “exceptional circumstances.” In the present case, the court does not 

find the required exceptional circumstances at this stage of these proceedings. 

In her opposition to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, defendant Delgado 

asks that the court strike from the record certain information concerning settlement negotiations 

which is contained in and attached to plaintiff’s motion. Because defendant Delgado fails to 

point to anything suggesting there is any reasonable chance any of the information identified by 

her will be used for some improper purpose, her request is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 68) is 

denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 66) is denied.

3. Defendant Delgado’s motion to strike made within her opposition to plaintiff’s motion

for the appointment of counsel (ECF NO. 67) is denied.

Dated: November 16, 2016

1

will1155.mta

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01155-MCE-CKD Document 72 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2