Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01583/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01583-8/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 

KEVIN ALLEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. VIRGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1583 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court are plaintiff’s motions to stay and for 

appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 48, 50, as well as a second amended complaint, ECF No. 49. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged that defendants Warden Virga and Rabbi Korik had 

denied plaintiff a kosher diet in violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion. 

Defendants Virga and Korik brought motions to dismiss which were granted in part and denied in 

part on September 16, 2013. The motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds were 

denied with prejudice. The motions to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity were denied but 

without prejudice. Defendant Virga’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted, 

but plaintiff was granted leave to amend. In addition, plaintiff was granted leave to amend to 

state a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 51 Filed 04/14/14 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

(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Plaintiff’s prospective injunctive relief claims were 

dismissed as moot and the matter proceeded at that point only on plaintiff’s claims for money 

damages. See ECF No. 43 (Order adopting Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 37)). 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a timely first amended complaint which stated colorable 

RLUIPA and First Amendment free exercise claims against defendant Virga, but which failed to 

identify defendant Korik as a party and made insufficiently supported claims of conspiracy. The 

first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. See ECF 

No. 47. Defendant Korik’s request for a protective order with respect to plaintiff’s discovery 

requests was granted, staying discovery as to defendant Korik because it was unclear whether 

plaintiff intended to proceed against him. Id. Plaintiff, however, filed a timely second amended 

complaint. ECF No. 49. 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 The second amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against defendants I. 

Korik and T. Virga pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), for violating 

plaintiff’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and of his rights under RLUIPA1

by denying him access to a kosher diet. Defendants must file a response to the second amended 

complaint within 21 days. 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

 Plaintiff filed a “motion to stay,” on November 7, 2013, prior to the filing of his second 

amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks a stay in order for the court to determine “whether a nonrequested amended complaint ordered by the court for one defendant can reverse a final judgment 

rendered against another defendant.” ECF No. 48. Plaintiff evidently objected to defendant 

Korik’s having sought a protective order with regard to plaintiff’s discovery requests because, at 

least with respect to the original complaint, plaintiff was still proceeding against defendant Korik. 

However, as plaintiff was informed in the order of October 31, 2013, his superseding first 

amended complaint did not indicate he was proceeding against that defendant. Therefore, 

 

1

 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 51 Filed 04/14/14 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

plaintiff’s inapposite motion for a stay, which in any event is now moot, will be denied. 

 Plaintiff has also requested appointment of counsel. 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 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. 

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. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This matter now proceeds against defendants Korik and Virga on plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint, ECF No. 49, for money damages on plaintiff’s allegations of violation of his 

First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and his rights under RLUIPA; 

 2. Defendants’ response to the second amended complaint must be filed within 21 days; 

 3. The stay of discovery by way of a protective order granted defendant Korik is hereby 

lifted; 

 4. Plaintiff’s “motion for a stay,” ECF No. 48, is denied; 

 5. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 50, is denied. 

DATED: April 11, 2014 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 51 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 3