Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02270/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02270-1/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

ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-2270 DFL KJM P

vs.

CHAPLAIN ORTIZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

rights under 48 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 17, 2004, the court asked that staff at the University

of California at Davis Law School (King Hall) Civil Rights Clinic consider representing plaintiff. 

Because the clinic did not respond to the court’s request, the court withdrew that request on June

23, 2005. The court has attempted to find other counsel for plaintiff. Unfortunately, the court

has not been successful. Based on the foregoing, this action will proceed without plaintiff’s

being appointed counsel. The parties’ motions for summary judgment are pending before the

court and the court will issue findings and recommendations with respect to those motions

shortly. If this case survives the motions for summary judgment, the court will set deadlines for

the filing of pretrial statements, issue a pretrial order and then set this matter for trial.

/////

Case 2:01-cv-02270-DFL -KJM Document 126 Filed 09/27/05 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

1

 Among other things, plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint. See docket #106. 

However, plaintiff fails to present any valid basis for granting leave to amend under Rule 15 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

The court notes that since it asked the King Hall Civil Rights Clinic consider

representing plaintiff, plaintiff has filed several frivolous motions1 and other material irrelevant

to what has transpired in this case. All of plaintiff’s outstanding motions that satisfy these

characterizations will be denied. Plaintiff is warned if he continues to file frivolous motions, or

submit irrelevant material to the court, he will be sanctioned, possibly with dismissal of this

action. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motions filed by

plaintiff on November 8, 2004, February 10, 2005 and July 13, 2005 are denied. 

DATED: September 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

muha2270.msj

Case 2:01-cv-02270-DFL -KJM Document 126 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 2