Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01326-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 

VILAYCHITH KHOUANMANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES MARSHALS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-1326-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an action arising under Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). She currently proceeds with an Eighth 

Amendment claim for alleged sexual assault against defendant Alencastre. See ECF Nos. 73, 77, 

& 92. On September 3, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to amend which sought primarily to 

reinstitute claims that the court had already screened out. ECF No. 101. The court recommended 

that motion be denied based on: (1) the length of time this case has already been pending; (2) 

plaintiff’s lengthy and troubled history of filing numerous motions to amend; and (3) the 

scattershot nature of plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 106. Those 

recommendations were adopted in full by the district judge. ECF No. 113. 

 After the foregoing recommendations were filed, plaintiff submitted numerous additional 

motions – three more motions to amend (ECF Nos. 107, 114, 120), three motions to compel (ECF 

Nos. 108, 112, 114), two motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 114, 119), and what appears to be 

Case 2:17-cv-01326-TLN-JDP Document 124 Filed 01/30/20 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 

responses to defendant Alencastre’s discovery requests (ECF No. 122). As discussed below, 

plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint as provided herein, and all other motions 

are denied. 

Motion to Amend 

In the October 21, 2019 motion to amend, plaintiff states, inter alia, that she named the 

wrong individual as the alleged perpetrator of her sexual assault. ECF No. 107 at 2. She requests 

that defendant Alencastre be replaced with Kevin Deppe. Id. The motion to amend, however, is 

not a complaint that is complete in itself. Indeed, plaintiff refers to it as both a motion to amend 

and a “motion to supplement defendant(s).” ECF No. 107 at 1. The local rules require that every 

amended pleading be complete in itself. See Local Rule 220. Thus, in granting her motion to 

amend, plaintiff is directed to file her amended complaint which substitutes Kevin Deppe within 

thirty days from the date of service of this order. Once the new complaint is submitted, the court 

will screen it and, if appropriate, recommend that defendant Alencastre be dismissed from this 

suit.1

 Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed motions to amend, ECF Nos. 114 and 120, are denied as 

duplicative and thus, moot. Plaintiff is cautioned that the filing of duplicative motions serves 

only to slow the progress of this case. In the future, plaintiff shall await a response from the court 

before filing redundant requests. 

As defendants requested in response to the motion to amend, the court re-affirms that the 

only active claim is an Eighth Amendment claim for sexual assaults alleged to have occurred on 

February 26, 2016, March 1, 2016, and March 11, 2016. ECF No. 110 at 2. Thus, plaintiff is 

cautioned that leave to amend is granted only as to that claim to permit plaintiff to substitute 

Kevin Deppe as a defendant. 

 1

 However, plaintiff states in one of her motions that she intends to include Alencastre as a 

co-defendant in an amended complaint because “he was there” and thus, has information that she 

would like to seek through discovery. ECF No. 114 at 4. That is not a basis for including 

Alencastre as a defendant. While plaintiff may seek discovery from witnesses with relevant 

information, simply being “there” is not adequate grounds for a claim. Plaintiff is admonished 

that unless she alleges actions by Alencastre that violated her federally-protected rights, 

Alencastre should not be included as a defendant in any amended complaint. If plaintiff files an 

amended complaint that states a viable claim as to Deppe, plaintiff will have the opportunity to 

engage in discovery. 

Case 2:17-cv-01326-TLN-JDP Document 124 Filed 01/30/20 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 

Motions to Compel 

 Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos 108, 112, 114) are denied. The interrogatories at 

issue were directed at defendant Alencastre whom, as noted supra, plaintiff now indicates she 

misidentified as the perpetrator of her sexual assault. Thus, it appears that adjudicating these 

motions to compel would be a waste of judicial economy. Further, as defendant points out, the 

other requests for discovery assistance contained in the motions are untimely and should have 

been submitted by September 27, 2019. See ECF No. 96. 

Motions to Appoint Counsel 

Plaintiff has also filed redundant requests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 114, 

119). As has previously been explained (see ECF Nos 31, 42, 49, 60, 64, 67, 79), district courts 

lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. 

United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may 

request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell 

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900F.2d 1332, 1335-36 

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must 

consider the 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). Having considered those factors once again, the court still finds 

there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 

Discovery Responses 

 Plaintiff has filed her responses to defendant’s discovery with the court. ECF No. 122. 

As plaintiff is aware (see ECF No. 99), discovery requests/responses shall only be filed with the 

court if they are at issue. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules 250.2-250.4. At this time, there is no 

proceeding before the court that requires the court’s review of plaintiff’s discovery responses. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:17-cv-01326-TLN-JDP Document 124 Filed 01/30/20 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 

Conclusion 

 Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 107) is GRANTED to the extent that, within 

thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must submit an amended 

complaint that is complete in itself and substitutes Kevin Deppe as a defendant to 

this action; 

2. Plaintiff’s subsequently-filed motions to amend (ECF Nos. 114 and 120) are 

DENIED as duplicative and thus, moot; 

3. Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 108, 112, 114) are DENIED; 

4. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 114, 119) are 

DENIED, without prejudice; and 

5. Plaintiff’s responses to discovery (ECF No. 122) are disregarded. 

DATED: January 29, 2020. 

Case 2:17-cv-01326-TLN-JDP Document 124 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 4