Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00702-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. O’BRIEN, No. 2:14-cv-0702-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

FRED FOULK, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 27), motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc.

28), and motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 29).

On April 20, 2016, the court issued an order for plaintiff to show cause why

defendants Swingle, Lee and Abdur-Rahman should not be dismissed from this action for failure

to state a claim. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is his response thereto. As the court

explained in prior orders, prisoners have no stand-alone due process rights related to the

administrative grievance process. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

1

Case 2:14-cv-00702-JAM-CMK Document 31 Filed 12/16/16 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

Plaintiff fails to provide any additional facts to show that the doctors had any involvement in his

dietary care beyond reviewing his inmate grievance. While plaintiff alleges Dr. Abdur-Rahman

failed to address the issue of whether the food served was in compliance with prison guidelines,

the undersigned does not find such allegations sufficient to rise to the level of personal

involvement required under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, these three individuals will be

dismissed from this action as set forth in the court’s prior orders, but will continue as to the

remaining two defendants.

As to plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, this is plaintiff’s second

attempt to have the court issue an order against individuals other than the defendants to this

action. As the court already informed plaintiff, where a prisoner is seeking injunctive relief with

respect to conditions of confinement, the prisoner’s transfer to another prison renders the request

for injunctive relief moot, unless there is some evidence of an expectation of being transferred

back. See Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517,

519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). In addition, this court is unable to issue an order against

individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). This action is against officials at High Desert State

Prison. Plaintiff is requesting the court issue an order directing the action of officials at Folsom

State Prison. Such a request must be denied as beyond the scope of this action. In addition,

plaintiff has now been transferred to San Quinton State Prison, and there is no indication that

plaintiff will be transferred back to High Desert State Prison in the near future. Plaintiff’s

request for preliminary injunction must be denied. 

Finally, plaintiff has again filed a request for the appointment of counsel. As

plaintiff has been informed, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack

authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v.

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

court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See

2

Case 2:14-cv-00702-JAM-CMK Document 31 Filed 12/16/16 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

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

1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of

both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims

on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 

Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See

id. 

Here, plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel based solely on his inability to

afford counsel, his limited legal knowledge, and the general difficulties of being a pro se prison

litigant. There is nothing in his motion to change the determination the court previously made

that plaintiff does not meet the required exceptional circumstances. As the court previously

determined, plaintiff appears capable of articulating his claim, the facts of the case are not

exceptionally complex, and it is not clear at this stage of the proceedings that plaintiff is likely to

prevail in this action. Thus, his request will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 27) is construed as his

response to the order to show cause and shall be denied as such; 

2. Defendants Swingle, Lee and Abdur-Rahman are dismissed from this

action;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 28) is denied; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 29) is denied. 

DATED: December 15, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00702-JAM-CMK Document 31 Filed 12/16/16 Page 3 of 3