Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00891/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00891-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JESSE OLIVAR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0891 GGH PS

vs.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for January 19, 2006,

was plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, filed October 18, 2005, defendant’s request

for status conference, filed October 31, 2005, and defendant’s motion to strike the amended

complaint, filed November 14, 2005.

I. Motion to Strike

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed May 15, 2003. On

October 31, 2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled, “amended complaint,” which the court

construes as a second amended complaint. Defendant’s motion to strike is addressed to that

complaint. 

Once an answer has been filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of

court or by written consent of the adverse party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). An answer was filed

on July 25, 2003. Plaintiff has filed neither a motion to amend nor a stipulation to amend the

Case 2:03-cv-00891-GGH Document 77 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

complaint signed by all parties. Plaintiff’s amended complaint will therefore be stricken without

prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a proposed third amended complaint accompanied by a motion to

amend within fourteen days of the hearing. 

II. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Any successful application for appointment of counsel must comply with criteria

set forth in Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Before

appointing counsel to plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bradshaw requires the court to

consider (1) plaintiff’s financial resources, (2) the efforts already made by plaintiff to secure

counsel, and (3) plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 1318. Appointment of

counsel is not a matter of right. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F. 2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982).

Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the first factor, which relates to

his financial condition, is a fortiori resolved in his favor. Nevertheless, plaintiff has given no

indication of his efforts to secure counsel on his own, and the court cannot determine that

plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore, his request for appointment of counsel is

denied.

Conclusion

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s October 31, 2005 second amended complaint is stricken. 

3. Plaintiff shall file a proposed third amended complaint with a motion to amend, within

fourteen days of the January 19, 2006 hearing.

DATED: 1/27/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________________

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

olivar0891.mtn.wpd

Case 2:03-cv-00891-GGH Document 77 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2