Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00501-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Donald Williams, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. Civ. S 05-0501 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

T. Felker, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiffs Williams and Burns are state prisoners without

counsel litigating a civil rights action.

May 13, 2005, plaintiff Williams filed a motion to amend the

complaint. May 19, 2005, the court denied the motion on the

ground the proposed amended pleading was not signed by both

plaintiffs.

June 2, 2005, plaintiff Williams filed a “response”

characterizing himself as the “lead” litigant and asking court

assistance in obtaining the signature of plaintiff Burns on the

Case 2:05-cv-00501-MCE -EFB Document 15 Filed 06/17/05 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

2

proposed amended complaint. 

A litigant appearing pro se has no authority to proceed on

behalf of any one other than himself. Russell v. United States,

308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United

States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987).

The court will not assist plaintiffs in communicating with

one another because they could have filed, and still can file,

separate actions. 

Plaintiffs moved March 14, 2005, to appoint counsel. In

proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of physical

liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed counsel. 

Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 26-27

(1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion upon

the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

Case 2:05-cv-00501-MCE -EFB Document 15 Filed 06/17/05 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

3

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiffs bring a laundry list of claimed

constitutional violations at High Desert State Prison. The law

governing these issues is settled and investigation outside the

prison walls is unnecessary to discover material facts. There

is, on the record before the court, no reason to believe

appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit.

Accordingly, plaintiffs March 14, 2005, motion for

appointment of counsel is denied. If plaintiffs fail to file an

amended complaint within 20 days the court will proceed with

screening the original pleading. 

Dated: June 16, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00501-MCE -EFB Document 15 Filed 06/17/05 Page 3 of 3