Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02454/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02454-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN W. JONES,

CDCR #BB-6806,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD J. DONOVAN (CDCR), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN PART AND 

GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

AND

(3) DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

(4) DENYING MOTION TO 

REQUEST ORDER OPPOSING 

COURT ORDER

I. Procedural History

On November 17, 2017, Kevin W. Jones (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the 

California State Prison - Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), in Lancaster, California, and 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action in the Northern District of California (ECF 

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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

No. 1), together with a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2) and a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3).

Because Plaintiff claimed prison officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California violated his constitutional rights while he was 

incarcerated there, the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. transferred his case to this 

Court for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1406(a) on 

December 5, 2017 (ECF No. 5). 

On February 23, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, denied 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted leave to 

file an amended pleading to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s 

Order. (See id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff later filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to 

Amend.” (ECF No. 10.) However, before the Court could rule on this Motion, Plaintiff 

filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No.13.) 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC for failing to state a claim and as frivolous. 

(ECF No. 21.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC, in part, as frivolous because the Court 

took judicial notice of an action filed by Plaintiff in the Central District of California that 

contained claims that were identical to the claims brought in this action. (Id. at 6 citing 

Jones v. LAC Warden, et al., C.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:17-cv-08021-AG-SHK (“Jones 

I”)). In addition, the Court noted that Plaintiff raised claims arising from the time that he 

was housed at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) and informed Plaintiff that those 

claims should be brought in a separate action in the Eastern District of California. (Id. at 

8-9.) Plaintiff has, in fact, brought such an action in the Eastern District. See Jones v. Fox, 

et al., E.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 2:17-cv-02190-JAM-EFB (“Jones II”). 

In the Court’s June 21, 2018 Order, Plaintiff was provided “forty-five (45) days leave 

to file an Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading described” in 

the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 21 at 9.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading. 

Instead, Plaintiff has filed a number of motions in which he seeks extensions of time for 

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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

matters not before this Court, requests the appointment of counsel, and requests injunctive 

relief.

II. Motions for Extensions of Time

Plaintiff has filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to File Responses in Opposition 

Motion under Rule 12(c).” (ECF No. 16.) The Court presumes that Plaintiff is referring 

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) which permits a party to “move for judgment 

on the pleadings.” FRCP 12(c). There is no pending motion for judgment on the 

pleadings in this matter and thus, this Motion is DENIED. 

In a separate motion, Plaintiff appears to claim that prison officials at the 

California Medical Facility (“CMF”) and CSP-LAC have interfered with his legal mail. 

(ECF No. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff requests a copy of the Court’s docket and a “right to file 

replay, notice or response answer to claim.” (Id.) To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to 

bring an access to courts claim in this matter for events that allegedly occurred at CMF 

and CSP-LAC, he may not do so because neither of those facilities are located in the 

Southern District of California. However, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s request for a 

copy of the Court’s docket.

Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Change of Address, Request Court Order 

extension of time and Request copy of opposing Defendant’s (FAC”) motion to dismiss 

claim.” (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff’s request to change his address is GRANTED and the 

Court’s docket has been updated to reflect Plaintiff’s current address. However, there is 

no pending motion to dismiss in this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for extension 

of time to respond is DENIED.

III. Motion to Conduct Discovery

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a “Court Order to discover the true names and 

identities of defendants as witness to this action under Rule 10.” (ECF No. 18 at 1.) In 

conducting the required sua sponte screening process, the Court found that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint was nearly devoid of any specific factual allegation against any prison official 

at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (See ECF No. 4-5.) Plaintiff 

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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

has been given leave to file an amended complaint in order to set forth specific factual 

allegations relating to the alleged constitutional violations at RJD. (See id. at 9.) 

Discovery is premature at this stage as there is no operative pleading and Plaintiff has not 

shown that he can state a claim against any of the RJD prison officials whether or not he 

is able to identify them by name. Plaintiff’s Motion to conduct discovery is DENIED. 

IV. Motions for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an “injunction directing Warden to 

release inmate property, incoming legal mail, as it’s delivered to its institution and stop 

prison officials from preventing inmate from exhausting state remedies by denied access 

to the courts.” (ECF No. 25 at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks an order “mov[ing] or 

transferr[ing] forthwith from LAC to Bakersfield or San Bernardino State Prison regional 

area.” (ECF No. 29 at 1.) At the time Plaintiff filed this action he was housed at CMF 

and later he was transferred to CSP-LAC. It is not clear whether Plaintiff is referring to 

the Warden of CMF or the Warden of CSP-LAC. Regardless, this Court has no 

jurisdiction over either Warden. 

Procedurally, a federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if 

it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 

lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) 

(noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that 

capacity, only upon service of summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the 

time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may not attempt 

to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. 

Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 

1983). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only 

“the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” 

and “other persons who are in active concert or participation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 

65(d)(2)(A)-(C).

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for injunctive relief is DENIED.

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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

V. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel in this matter on the grounds that he is a 

“layman at law,” indigent, and is unable to “understand deadlines.” (ECF No. 27 at 1.)

All documents filed pro se are liberally construed, and “a pro se complaint, 

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotations omitted)). But there is no 

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case; and Plaintiff’s matter does not demand that 

the Court exercise its limited discretion to request than an attorney represent him pro 

bono pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at this stage of the case. See Lassiter v. Dept. of 

Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Only “exceptional circumstances” support such a 

discretionary appointment. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Exceptional circumstances exist 

where there is cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on the merits and a 

demonstrated inability of the pro se litigant to articulate her claims in light of their legal 

complexity. Id.

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has yet to show he is likely to succeed on the merits 

of the claims. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for appointment of 

counsel.

VI. Motion Opposing Court’s June 21, 2018 Order

By the Order entered on June 21, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC and 

provided him leave to file an amended pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of 

pleading identified in the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 21.) Rather than complying with the 

Court’s Order, Plaintiff has filed two “Motions” opposing the Court’s Order1and 

 

1 Plaintiff mistakenly believes that the June 21, 2018 Order was issued by a Magistrate Judge when in 

fact this Order was issued by a United States District Judge. 

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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

providing “notice” of his intention to “reallege all claims” and include “additional pages” 

in his Complaint “by paraphrase.” (ECF Nos. 31, 33, 35.) Plaintiff then provides partial 

“corrections” to his Complaint. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff was cautioned in the Court’s Order 

that if he intended to file an amended complaint, “it must be complete by itself, comply 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and that any claim not re-alleged will be 

considered waived.” (ECF No. 21 at 9.) In no way do Plaintiff’s Motions comply with 

the Court’s Order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions to “re-allege all claims” in his 

Complaint are DENIED. 

VII. Conclusion and Orders

For all the reasons discussed, the Court: 

1. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Discovery, Motions for Injunctive 

Relief, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion to “re-allege all claims” [ECF Nos. 

18, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35];

2. GRANTS in part, and DENIES in part, Plaintiff’s Motions for Extensions 

of Time [ECF Nos. 16, 20, 23]; 

3. GRANTS Plaintiff an additional forty-five (45) days leave to file an 

amended complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading described in the Court’s 

Order entered on June 21, 2018. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that should he choose to 

file an amended complaint, it must be complete by itself, comply with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a), and that any claim not re-alleged will be considered waived. See

S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 

1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with 

leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered 

waived if not repled.”). 

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

3:17-cv-2454-BTM-BLM

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. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a court approved form civil 

rights complaint, a copy of the Court’s docket, and a copy of the Court’s June 21, 2018 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2018

HON. BARRY TED. MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:17-cv-02454-BTM-BLM Document 38 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7