Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813-11/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT KEITH ERNST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0813 DAD AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s 

motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 67), motion for 

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 69), and request for entry of default against defendant Beeck 

(ECF No. 73). 

I. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction 

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to discovery requests from 

defendants Akhila, Ginwalla, and Miraflor. ECF No. 67. In support of this request, plaintiff 

stated that the prison mail room was refusing to process his mail to those defendants’ attorneys, 

who are not employed by the California Attorney General’s Office, unless he traded in his regular 

indigent envelopes. ECF No. 67. Plaintiff further requested a temporary restraining order or 

preliminary injunction directing the mailroom to process his legal mail to counsel for defendants 

Akhila, Ginwalla, and Miraflor. Id. The court then ordered counsel from the Attorney General’s 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 09/18/24 Page 1 of 6
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 

2 

Office, who represent other defendants, to respond to plaintiff’s allegations regarding the refusal 

to process his mail. ECF No. 68. Defendants have now responded. ECF No. 70. 

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [(1)] that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, [(2)] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, [(3)] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [(4)] that an injunction is 

in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 

omitted). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same as that for 

issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 

839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that the analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary 

injunctions is “substantially identical”). 

In this case, plaintiff is unable to establish irreparable harm. While defendants’ response 

confirms that plaintiff was previously required to exchange his regular indigent envelopes in 

order to send mail out to counsel for defendants Akhila, Ginwalla, and Miraflor, the mailroom at 

the prison has confirmed that going forward, plaintiff will not be required to make such an 

exchange in order to mail documents to the non-Attorney General’s Office counsel so long as he 

complies with the other requirements for submitting confidential mail. ECF No. 70 at 4. Because 

it appears that plaintiff is now receiving the relief he seeks, he cannot show irreparable harm and 

the motion for preliminary injunction is moot. Since plaintiff’s difficulties in sending mail to 

non-Attorney General’s Office counsel in this case should now be resolved, the motion for an 

extension of time will be granted and plaintiff shall have additional time to submit his discovery 

responses to those defendants, if he has not done so already. 

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 69. 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 district 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); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 09/18/24 Page 2 of 6
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 

3 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel on the grounds that the case is complex, and 

that he is indigent, is having difficulty sending mail to non-Attorney General’s Office counsel, 

and experiences delays in obtaining copies from the law library. ECF No. 69 at 1, 7-8. He also 

identifies a number of alleged deficiencies with the prison medical system and reiterates some of 

his allegations against defendants. Id. at 2-6. Plaintiff’s indigence and the delays he experiences 

in obtaining copies are circumstances common to most prisoners and, as addressed above, his 

difficulties with sending legal mail appear to be resolved. To the extent plaintiff claims the case 

is complex, he has not any complexity that warrants the appointment of counsel. For these 

reasons, the motion for counsel will be denied. 

III. Request for Entry of Default 

Plaintiff requests an entry of default as to defendant Beeck. ECF No. 73. He asserts that 

she was served by the United States Marshal on May 8, 2024, but has yet to respond to the 

complaint. Id. As further explained below, defendant Beeck has not yet been served and the 

request for default will be denied. 

On October 25, 2023, the court ordered service of the complaint on defendant Beeck1 via 

the court’s e-service program. ECF No. 31. However, process directed to defendant Beeck was 

returned unserved because Beeck had resigned from the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the CDCR had no contact information. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff 

1

 Defendant Beeck was identified as Amelia “Beek” in the complaint. ECF No. 29. Her name 

was later updated to “Beck” based on the information contained in the CDCR Notice of E-Service 

Waiver. ECF No. 38. Defense counsel later provided information stating that defendant’s name 

is “Amalia Beeck.” ECF No. 58. 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 09/18/24 Page 3 of 6
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 

was unable to obtain additional information for service and requested the court’s assistance in 

locating Beeck. ECF No. 45. The court then directed counsel for defendants Ashe, Miller, 

Nelson, Singh, Ramos, and Wong2 to conduct a good faith inquiry to identify a last known 

address for defendant Beeck. ECF No. 52. In response to that order, counsel provided a last 

known residential address and what they believed may be defendant’s professional license 

number. ECF No. 58. 

 On April 25, 2024, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the complaint on 

defendant Beeck using the information provided by defense counsel. ECF No. 59. Process 

directed to Beeck has now been returned unserved because the United States Marshal was unable 

to locate her. ECF No. 72. The process receipt states that service was attempted at the address 

provided and a resident confirmed that defendant was a previous resident in 2020 and “might live 

in Lodi.” Id. A search of defendant in the registered nursing registry identified her current city as 

San Jose but provided no other information. 

 The court previously cautioned plaintiff that 

[i]n ordering defendants’ counsel to assist the U.S. Marshal in 

locating defendant Beck, the court is not absolving plaintiff of his 

responsibility to continue attempting to locate this defendant. If the 

U.S. Marshal remains unable to locate Beck for service and the court 

is satisfied with their attempts to locate Beck, it will be recommended 

that Beck be dismissed for failure to complete service. [Penton v. 

Pool, 724 F. App’x 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2018)] (“If the district court is 

satisfied that the Marshals have fulfilled their obligation to search for 

a viable address where [defendant] can be served, then it would act 

within its discretion to dismiss the action against [defendant] under 

Rule 4(m).”). Plaintiff should therefore continue his efforts to locate 

defendant Beck and provide the court with any additional 

information he may discovery that would assist with the completion 

of service. 

ECF No. 52 at 2. The court is satisfied that the Marshals have fulfilled their obligation. Plaintiff 

will be given an opportunity to provide any additional information he may have discovered 

regarding defendant Beeck’s location that would assist in the completion of service. In the event 

plaintiff is unable to provide any such additional information, the court will recommend dismissal 

2

 These defendants are represented by the Attorney General’s Office. 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 09/18/24 Page 4 of 6
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 

5 

of defendant Beeck for failure to complete service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to responds to discovery (ECF No. 67) is 

GRANTED and plaintiff shall have twenty-one days from the service of this order to serve his 

responses to discovery on counsel for defendants Akhila, Ginwalla, and Miraflor; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 69) is DENIED; 

3. Plaintiff’s request for entry of default (ECF No. 73) is DENIED; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff 1 USM-285 form, along with an 

instruction sheet; and 

5. Within sixty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and submit 

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court along with the completed USM-285 

form containing any additional information he has regarding defendant Beeck’s location. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining 

order or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 67) be DENIED as moot. 

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: September 16, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 09/18/24 Page 5 of 6
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT KEITH ERNST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0813 DAD AC P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order 

filed _____________________ : 

 __1__ completed USM-285 forms 

DATED: 

 ________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 74 Filed 09/18/24 Page 6 of 6