Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01203/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01203-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE V. QUILLAR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1203 FCD KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2007 plaintiff filed a motion asking permission to

seek discovery from defendants Murray and Mendoza. On August 6, 2007, defendants filed an

opposition to the motion. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied as defendants Murray and Mendoza

have been dismissed from this action. See Order filed August 16, 2007 (docket no. 77).

Plaintiff has requested the 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 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);

Case 2:04-cv-01203-KJM-CKD Document 78 Filed 08/23/07 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’s July 24, 2007 motion for discovery appeared to contemplate seeking 1

information on defendant Rowlett’s successors. As noted above, given that the motion was directed

to defendants who have been dismissed, it is being denied. 

2

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

Finally, the court notes that on July 13, 2007, plaintiff was given 30 days within

which to identify a specific party to substitute for defendant Rowlett, as defendant Rowlett is

deceased. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with this order would result in denial of

plaintiff’s November 16, 2006 motion for substitution. The 30 day period has now expired and

plaintiff has not complied with the court’s July 13, 2007 order. Plaintiff’s November 16, 2006 1

motion for substitution will be denied. Because there are no remaining defendants in this action,

the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 24, 2007 “motion for discovery” is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s August 9, 2007 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied;

and

3. Plaintiff’s November 16, 2006 motion for substitution is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01203-KJM-CKD Document 78 Filed 08/23/07 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

3

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 22, 2007.

/bb

quil1203.31

Case 2:04-cv-01203-KJM-CKD Document 78 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3