Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02544/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02544-18/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

VINCENT SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:08-cv-2544-KJN P

ORDER

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is proceeding before a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Consents filed December 11, 2008, and October 22, 

2010. Plaintiff has filed two motions, both styled as motions for the appointment of counsel and 

to stay the proceedings in this case. (ECF Nos. 122, 123.) In his first motion, filed on May 5, 

2014, plaintiff requests that the court place a stay on the present case until it appoints him an 

attorney. (ECF No. 122 at 1.) In his second motion, plaintiff requests that the court issue an 

emergency injunction ordering unidentified “CSP Staff” to issue to plaintiff “all of [his] legal 

work and legal exhibits” that was allegedly taken from him and to transfer plaintiff to San 

Quentin State Prison. (ECF No. 123 at 1.) Construed liberally, it appears that plaintiff’s second 

motion is a request for the court to issue a temporary restraining order. For the reasons stated 

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 124 Filed 05/23/14 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

27

28

2

below, both motions are denied.

I. Plaintiff’s First Motion

Plaintiff requests that the court place a stay on this case until he is appointed counsel on 

the basis that unidentified “CSP Staff” confiscated his legal work for all of his pending cases and 

assaulted him because plaintiff asked to speak with a correctional captain. (ECF No. 122 at 1-2.) 

Plaintiff alleges that these actions have made it impossible for him to continue the prosecution of 

this case without the assistance of an attorney. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff has filed six previous motions for appointment of counsel, all of which have been 

denied. As the court has explained in prior orders, 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 at this time. Plaintiff’s latest request for the appointment of counsel 

will therefore be denied. Furthermore, the court finds that the circumstances do not warrant a 

stay on these proceeding. Accordingly, the court also denies plaintiff’s request for a stay. 

II. Plaintiff’s Second Motion

As noted above, the content of plaintiff’s second motion for the appointment of counsel 

and issuance of a stay reveals that this motion is more properly characterized as a request for a 

temporary restraining order. The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve 

the status quo pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for 

issuing a temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed 

prior to the hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent however, that requests for 

temporary restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same 

general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle 

Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified 

Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. 

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 124 Filed 05/23/14 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

27

28

3

dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In 

many cases the emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships 

because the merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice.

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established. To 

prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the 

possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships 

tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 

700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th 

Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point 

being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any 

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of 

irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the 

court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

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).

Here, plaintiff’s motion includes allegations only against individuals who are not named 

defendants in this action. However, the court is unable to issue an order against individuals who 

are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 

395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Accordingly, this motion is denied.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for the 

appointment of counsel and to stay the proceedings in this case (ECF No. 122, 123) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2014

Case 2:08-cv-02544-KJN Document 124 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 3