Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00476-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0476 JAM GGH P

vs.

JOHN McGUINESS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On July 16, 2008, plaintiff filed his fourth request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on May 29, 2008, June 2, 2008, and June 11, 2008. All

requests were denied. In light of those orders, plaintiff’s July 16, 2008, motion is denied.

On July 23, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of a paralegal. The

court does not have the authority to appoint a paralegal. Accordingly, this motion is denied.

On July 16, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to include

additional exhibits. Attached to the motion are exhibits. Plaintiff did not file a proposed

amended complaint. Local Rule 15-220 requires that all complaints be complete without

reference to other documents. Because plaintiff’s motion does not include a proposed amended

complaint, the motion to amend is denied. Plaintiff is informed that he is not required to submit

Case 2:08-cv-00476-JAM-GGH Document 40 Filed 08/11/08 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

 Defendants also state that plaintiff failed to meet and confer before making this request. 1

The July 17, 2008, discovery order provide that Local Rule 37-251, which sets forth the meet and

confer requirement, does not apply. 

2

evidence in support of his claims at this time. 

On July 22, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that defendants produce an

audiotape. On July 31, 2008, defendants filed an opposition to this motion. Defendants observe

that plaintiff did not first request the audiotape in a proper discovery request. On this ground, the

motion is denied.1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 16, 2008 motion for the appointment of counsel (#32) is

denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (#30) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a paralegal (#35) is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for production of audiotapes (#34) is denied.

DATED: 08/11/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:ak

coat0476.31.thr

Case 2:08-cv-00476-JAM-GGH Document 40 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 2