Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. 1:05-cv-00003 ALA P

vs.

DR. KIM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

On December 6, 2007, this court issued an order which allowed plaintiff to proceed in

this action against some, but not all, of the named defendants or file an amended complaint. 

That order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal service on

December 21, 2007. 

Plaintiff has now filed a motion requesting an enlargement of time to file an amended

complaint, as well as a motion for the appointment of counsel. In his motion, plaintiff claims

that he received the courts December 6, 2007, order on February 20, 2008, and therefore, that the

date of that order is an error. Plaintiff is informed that the date of the court’s December 6, 2007,

order is not in error. 

After the court’s December 6, 2007, order was returned to the court as undeliverable,

plaintiff filed a motion for production of interrogatories. Written on that filing was plaintiff’s

updated address. The Clerks Office then reserved plaintiff with the returned order at his current

address. 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 37 Filed 03/24/08 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

27

28

2

It appears plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rules 83-182(f), and 11-110 (E.D. Cal.

1997), which require that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address

change. Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to comply with these rules and that failure to

comply in the future will result in dismissal of this action. 

As to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 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 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). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel

will therefore be denied. 

/////

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 21, 2008, motion to file an amended complaint is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of

this order;

3. Plaintiff is ordered to provide the court with his current address; and

4. Plaintiff’s March 21, 2008, motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED

/////

DATED: March 21, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 37 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 2