Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01089/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01089-15/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

 GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:06-cv-1089 ALA (P)

vs.

W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Before this Court are the following motions: (1) Mr. Johnson’s two motions for

subpoenas duces tecum (Docs. 38 and 39); (2) Mr. Johnson’s motion for default judgment (Docs.

59-61); (3) Mr. Johnson’s motion for summary adjudication (Docs. 65, 67 and 68); and (4) Mr.

Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 66). 

I

Mr. Johnson filed two motions for subpoenas duces tecum on February 25, 2008 (Docs.

38 and 39). In the order filed on February 28, 2008 (Doc. 40), the Court informed Mr. Johnson

that the “consideration of those motions will be deferred until after the court has received

defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary

injunction.” Defendants filed their response and the Court denied Mr. Johnson’s motion for a

temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction on March 19, 2008 (Doc. 45). 

Case 1:06-cv-01089-ALA -GSA Document 70 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Therefore, Mr. Johnson’s pending motions for subpoenas duces tecum are denied as moot. 

II

In his motion for default judgment, Mr. Johnson argues that “defendants [have failed] to

answer or otherwise defend in the above entitled matter.” (Doc. 59). However, the Defendants

filed an Answer on April 7, 2008. (Doc. 56). Therefore, Mr. Johnson’s motion for default

judgment is denied.

III

Mr. Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment on April 21, 2008. (Doc. 66). 

Defendants shall file a response to Mr. Johnson’s motion on or before May 26, 2008. Mr.

Johnson shall file a reply to Defendants’ response on or before June 9, 2008.

IV

Mr. Johnson has requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 66). The United

States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 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. Mr. Johnson’s motion for the appointment

of counsel will therefore be denied.

/// 

///

Accordingly, good cause showing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Mr. Johnson’s motions for subpoenas duces tecum (Docs. 38 and 39) are

DENIED as moot.

2. Mr. Johnson’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 59) is DENIED.

3. Defendants shall file a response to Mr. Johnson’s motion for summary judgment

on or before May 26, 2008. Mr. Johnson shall file a reply to Defendants’

response on or before June 9, 2008.

Case 1:06-cv-01089-ALA -GSA Document 70 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Mr. Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 66) is DENIED.

///

DATED: April 30, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:06-cv-01089-ALA -GSA Document 70 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 3