Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02015/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02015-3/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

MELVIN A. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-2015 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. On November 30, 2022, plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to elect whether to 

proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant West, or whether to amend his 

pleading to attempt to state cognizable civil rights claims against defendants Lynch, Burkheart, 

and Cornelly. (ECF No. 6.) On December 21, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of 

counsel, a motion for reconsideration of the court’s screening order, and his notice of election. 

As set forth below, plaintiff’s motions are denied, and he is granted an extension of time 

to file an amended complaint.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

In his motion, plaintiff asks the court to appoint “Brain Dunn, a member of the California 

State Bar,” as counsel for plaintiff. (ECF No. 10 at 2.) Plaintiff claims he appended letters to 

lawyers in which plaintiff sought representation. However, the two-page motion contains no 

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 15 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 4
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

attachments or letters. It is unclear whether Mr. Dunn was contacted by plaintiff and whether Mr. 

Dunn agreed to represent plaintiff if the court were to appoint Dunn as counsel. Plaintiff also 

provided no address for Mr. Dunn. 

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 

1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 

circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 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). When determining whether “exceptional 

circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s 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) (district court did not 

abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). 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 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings, 

the court is unable to assess the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff failed to meet his 

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this 

time.

Motion for Reconsideration

As noted above, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s complaint by order filed and served 

on November 30, 2022. On December 19, 2022, plaintiff signed his motion for reconsideration of 

such order.1 Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no 

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service 

////

1

 The Court applies the mailbox rule to plaintiff’s filing. “[T[he Houston mailbox rule applies to 

§ 1983 complaints filed by pro se prisoners.” Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 

2009), citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is dated from 

the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities).

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 15 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 4
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

of the ruling on the parties.” Id. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the November 30, 2022 

is therefore untimely and is denied.

2

In his motion, plaintiff provided additional facts concerning retaliation. Plaintiff is 

provided the following standards for pleading a retaliation claim: 

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to 

be free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012)

(citation omitted). To state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, a prisoner must allege 

five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Conduct 

protected by the First Amendment includes communications that are “part of the grievance 

process.” Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009). If plaintiff intends to assert 

a retaliation claim, he must specifically identify the protected conduct at issue, name the 

defendant who took adverse action against him, and plead that the allegedly adverse action3 was 

taken “because of” plaintiff’s protected conduct.4

Notice of Election

On December 21, 2022, plaintiff also filed the notice of election form indicating he opts to 

2

 In his filing, plaintiff adds factual allegations that were not included in his original complaint. 

Plaintiff is advised that if he intends to raise such allegations, he must include such allegations in 

his proposed amended complaint, specifically attributing facts to each named defendant. The 

court will not entertain piecemeal filings; rather, in his proposed amended complaint, plaintiff is 

required to include the facts he alleges demonstrate how each named defendant violated 

plaintiff’s civil rights.

 

3

 For purposes of evaluating a retaliation claim, an adverse action is action that “could chill a 

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity[ ].” Pinard v. 

Clatskanie School Dist., 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006). See also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 

1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000).

4

 Prisoners have a constitutional right to file prison grievances and pursue civil rights litigation in 

the courts. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567. Prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for 

exercising these rights. Id. at 568; see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997); 

Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.2d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995).

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 15 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3 of 4
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

file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) However, plaintiff did not provide a proposed 

amended complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days in which 

to file an amended complaint that complies with the November 30, 2022 order. Because plaintiff 

is required to file his amended complaint on the court’s form, the court will provide the form for 

plaintiff.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10) is denied without 

prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s untimely motion for reconsideration (ECF No 13) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 

on the court’s form that complies with the November 30, 2022 order; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights 

complaint by a prisoner.

Dated: December 27, 2022

/park2015.31+

Case 2:22-cv-02015-CSK Document 15 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4 of 4