Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416-15/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

ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-0416 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff has also recently 

filed documents styled as motions or miscellaneous filings that do not appear to request any 

relief. (ECF No. 64, 65, 66.)

Request for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel, stating he cannot afford to hire counsel and his 

imprisonment and lack of knowledge of the law will limit his ability to litigate. (ECF No. 67 at 1-

2.) The court lacks 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 district 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. 

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 68 Filed 05/27/22 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

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist 

at this time.

“Discovery Motion for Complaint...” (ECF No. 64)

On April 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a document titled “Discovery Motion for Complaint for 

Wrongful Arrest and Prosecution with False Testimony.” Based on its content, the court construes 

the filing as an unauthorized reply to the defendant’s answer to the fourth amended complaint. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow only a reply to an answer to be filed “if the court 

orders one.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). The court has not ordered plaintiff to file a reply to 

defendant’s answer in this case. Accordingly, the court disregards this document. 

“Summons and Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 65)

This document, also filed on April 28, 2022, sets forth some of the information in the 

court’s discovery and scheduling order filed on April 15, 2022, including the discovery deadline 

of August 12, 2022, and the dispositive motion deadline of November 4, 2022. (ECF No. 65 at 1-

2.) As the document does not seek any relief, the court disregards this document.

“Motion requesting... Discovery” (ECF No. 66)

On May 13, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion Requesting Cal. Gov’t Code § 

11507.6 Request for Discovery.” It is not clear whether plaintiff has served this document on the 

defendant. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests, 

which must be sent to the defendant’s counsel rather than to the court. Plaintiff is advised that 

neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party’s responses should be filed 

with the court until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief 

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 68 Filed 05/27/22 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

from the court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In other words, discovery requests 

between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. Thus, the 

court disregards this motion for discovery.

Caution about Further Filings and Order

The record reflects plaintiff has filed multiple documents styled as motions which are not, 

in fact, motions. The court understands plaintiff lacks legal training and for that reason, the court 

liberally construes plaintiff’s pleadings. Nevertheless, plaintiff is cautioned that a litigant 

proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court if an excessive number of 

motions or improperly filed documents are filed in a pending action. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 

912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff 

shall make a good faith effort to restrict his court filings to those allowed under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s “Discovery Motion for Complaint...” (ECF No. 64), “Summons and 

Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 65), and “Motion requesting... Discovery” (ECF No. 66) will be 

disregarded. Plaintiff is cautioned that an order of sanctions could result from the continued filing 

of discovery requests or responses, except as required by rule of court, or of miscellaneous 

documents not requesting any relief that can be provided under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 67) is DENIED.

Dated: May 26, 2022

DLB7

turn0416.31(4)misc

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 68 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 3