Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01339-1/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

ALTON E. DEAN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-1339 KJN P

vs.

CAVAGNARO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, seeks

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By concurrent Order, plaintiff’s civil rights complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend. Presently pending are plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel,

filed on January 11, 2010 and February 11, 2010, and plaintiff’s “motion for injunction

prohibiting harassment, permanent restraining order and full pardon,” filed on January 12, 2010.

I. Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order 

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

demonstrate ‘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.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir.

2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76

Case 2:09-cv-01339-MCE -KJN Document 22 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 3
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

(2008).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s motion concerns issues not presented in plaintiff’s civil rights

complaint. In fact, the court is not entirely clear what plaintiff requests. Plaintiff is concerned

with $400 that was removed from his prison trust account by the Department of Revenue

Recovery, concerning an entirely different court case. Plaintiff requests an audit of the money

that was removed. 

Plaintiff’ request as currently drafted is not appropriately brought as a motion for

a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion will be vacated at this time. If plaintiff files an

amended complaint that the court deems contains cognizable claims and the court orders service,

plaintiff may file a new motion for a preliminary injunction involving those claims.

II. Appointment of Counsel

On January 11, 2010 and February 11, 2010, plaintiff filed his third and fourth

requests for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on July 2, 2009

and July 20, 2009. Those requests were denied. 

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 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. Therefore,

plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel are denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 2:09-cv-01339-MCE -KJN Document 22 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. Plaintiff’s January 12, 2010, motion (Dkt. No. 18) for a preliminary injunction

is vacated with leave granted to file a new preliminary injunction if plaintiff files an amended

complaint that the court determines contains cognizable claims.

2. Plaintiff’s January 11, 2010 and February 11, 2010 requests for counsel (Dkt.

Nos. 17, 21) are denied. 

DATED: February 25, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

dean1339.pi

Case 2:09-cv-01339-MCE -KJN Document 22 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 3