Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05290/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHMED AMARIR, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

JAMES C. HILL, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5290 CRB (PR)

ORDER

(Docs # 12, 35, 36 & 41)

Ahmed Amarir, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) in

Soledad, California, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367 alleging denial of adequate dental treatment “to correct and alleviate his

dental problems concerning grinding, clenching, and a return to a normal bit[e]”

since October 17, 2002. Amarir seeks damages and an evaluation and treatment

from an outside specialist on the grounds that CTF dentists have made his

condition worse by improperly grinding his teeth and injuring his gums.

Per order filed on March 21, 2005, the court found that, when liberally

construed, Amarir’s allegations state a cognizable claim for injunctive and

monetary relief for deliberate indifference under § 1983, and for medical

malpractice under California law, against CTF dentist James C. Hill and CTF chief

medical officer Michael L. Friedman, and ordered the United States Marshal to

serve them. 

Case 3:04-cv-05290-CRB Document 44 Filed 12/01/05 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

Shortly after defendants filed an answer, Amarir filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order (“TRO)/preliminary injunction. For the reasons stated

in defendants’ opposition papers, the motion (doc # 12) is DENIED. Although

Amarir has made clear his dissatisfaction with the dental treatment he has received

at CTF, he has demonstrated neither a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, nor that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See Bernhardt v. Los

Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Amarir has filed three other motions. Good cause appearing, Amarir’s

motion (doc # 35) for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). The clerk is instructed to filed the proposed amended complaint

submitted by Amarir on October 17, 2005 as the First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) in this matter. 

Amarir’s motion (doc # 36) for an order compelling further production of

documents is DENIED. The court finds that Amarir has not complied with the 

meet-and-confer requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Court’s Local Rules because his letter to defendants does not explain why the

documents he seeks should be produced. 

Amarir’s motion (doc # 41) for appointment of counsel is DENIED for lack

of exceptional circumstances. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th

Cir. 1984) (decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under §

1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in

exceptional circumstances”). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Dec. 01, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05290-CRB Document 44 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2