Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00307-26/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

SHELDON RAY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. LOTERZSTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Pending before me are numerous motions, primarily filed by plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions to appoint counsel. ECF Nos. 105, 107, 131, & 136. 

I will deny all of these motions. Plaintiff has also filed a related motion to attach exhibits to his 

last motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 137. I will grant this motion, and I have considered the 

attached exhibits in my decision. 

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

v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and I lack the authority to require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, I will seek 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 07/31/23 Page 1 of 4
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

volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

I cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are 

present here. Plaintiff alleges that medical conditions, specifically clawed hands and a lack of 

education, weigh in favor of appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 107 at 2 & 136 at 1-2. Thus far, 

however, he has proven able to file numerous motions on his own. Plaintiff may request 

reasonable extensions of time when necessary. 

Motions for Sanctions

Plaintiff has filed two motions for sanctions, ECF Nos. 110 & 134, wherein he argues that 

defendants should be sanctioned for interfering with his access to courts by confiscating and 

possibly destroying his personal property. ECF No. 110 at 8. These are the same arguments that 

I recently rejected in a separate order. ECF No. 135. Accordingly, these other motions for 

sanctions are also denied. I will also deny defendants’ motion for clarification of the motion for 

sanctions, ECF No. 114, as moot.

Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal

Plaintiff requests that his notice of appeal, ECF No. 111, be stricken. ECF No. 115. Any 

request to withdraw an appeal must be filed with the Court of Appeals and, moreover, it appears 

that plaintiff’s appeal has already been dismissed. ECF No. 118. This motion is denied.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff has filed a “request for judicial notice” that is, in fact, a list of complaints 

regarding his litigative resources and access to courts. ECF No. 116 at 2-4. Plaintiff requests 

appointment of counsel and certificates of appeal in two of his other cases that have been 

dismissed. Id. at 4. His request for counsel is denied for the same reasons cited above in the 

denial of his motions for appointment of counsel. Additionally, I cannot grant or modify a 

certificate of appeal in another case; claims for such relief must be brought in the case in which

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 07/31/23 Page 2 of 4
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

the certificate was denied. Defendant’s request for clarification as to this motion, ECF No. 121, 

is denied as moot. 

Motions for Extension of Time

Plaintiff asks for an extension of time and references Judge Drozd’s February 24, 2023 

order adopting my findings and recommendations. ECF No. 117. Plaintiff does not state what he 

needs an extension of time to do and, as such, his motion is denied. 

Similarly, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to Judge Drozd’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 127, is DENIED. No response to Judge Drozd’s 

final order is contemplated by the federal rules of civil procedure. 

Motions for Medical Evaluation

Finally, plaintiff has filed two motions seeking an order directing the California Health 

Care Facility to medically evaluate him. ECF Nos. 130 & 133. Therein, he alleges that a nondefendant physician, Shafali Awatani and Francis Ko, have refused to follow unspecified care 

recommendations from outside physicians. ECF No. 130 at 1-2. I construe these as motions for 

preliminary injunctive relief and recommend that they be denied as insufficiently related to the

allegations against other defendants at issue in this suit. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 

Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A preliminary injunction is appropriate 

when it grants relief of the same nature as that to be finally granted.”). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 105, 107, 131, & 136, motions 

for sanctions, ECF Nos. 110 & 134, motion to strike, ECF No. 115, request for judicial notice, 

ECF No. 116, and motions for extensions of time, ECF Nos. 117 & 127, are DENIED. His 

motion to file exhibits, ECF No. 137, is GRANTED.

2. Defendant’s requests for clarification, ECF Nos. 114 & 121, are DENIED as moot.

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for medical evaluation, ECF Nos. 130 & 133, construed as 

motions for preliminary injunctive relief, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 07/31/23 Page 3 of 4
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

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

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00307-DAD-JDP Document 139 Filed 07/31/23 Page 4 of 4