Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01519-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BURCH MICHAEL BOWEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1519 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S. § 1983. By order filed on September 17, 2013, the court found that plaintiff had framed a 

colorable Eighth Amendment claim against a number of defendants in his second amended 

complaint, but granted plaintiff leave to amend his claims against two additional defendants 

within thirty days. ECF No. 24. The undersigned also noted that although plaintiff had been 

appointed counsel for the limited purpose of drafting and filing a second amended complaint, 

plaintiff would be proceeding from that point pro se. Id. On October 28, 2013, plaintiff was 

granted an additional thirty days either to file a third amended complaint or to submit the requisite 

documents to effect service of the second amended complaint. ECF No. 26. 

 Plaintiff has evidently elected to proceed on his second amended complaint. However, in 

a recent request for appointment of counsel plaintiff avers that the Law Library Supervisor, Mr. 

Sanchez, has refused to provide plaintiff with any of the copies he needs for the second amended 

complaint to be served. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff states that he has provided Mr. Sanchez with this 

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 29 Filed 12/03/13 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

court’s order directing plaintiff to provide the documents for service as well as a trust withdrawal 

account but that nevertheless this individual, without explanation, refuses to permit plaintiff to 

comply with the court’s order. Id. 

 No defendants have been served with process. Usually persons or entities not parties to an 

action are not subject to orders for injunctive relief. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 

Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). However, the fact one is not a party does not automatically preclude 

the court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 1651(a) permits the court to issue writs 

Anecessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 

law.@ See generally S.E.C. v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1981); United 

States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). This section does not grant the court 

plenary power to act in any way it wishes; rather, the All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the 

exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 

1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979). 

The court is concerned that it may lose its jurisdiction if plaintiff is unable to prosecute 

this action because he is not being provided the document copies he must have in order to 

prosecute this case. 

To the extent plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel, however, plaintiff is 

informed that 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, as noted, counsel was previously appointed for the limited purpose of drafting 

and filing a second amended complaint. The court does not find that exceptional circumstances 

exist at this time to support further appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s requests for the 

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. 

//// 

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 29 Filed 12/03/13 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

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, CMF Law Library Supervisor 

Sanchez shall inform the court why plaintiff is not being provided the copies required to serve the 

second amended complaint pursuant to a court order. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order by mail on CMF 

Law Library Supervisor Sanchez at California Medical Facility at each of the following 

addresses: 

a) P.O. Box 2500, Vacaville, CA 95696-2500; 

b) 1600 California Drive, Vacaville, CA 95696. 

 3. Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 27 and 28) are 

denied. 

DATED: December 2, 2013 

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 29 Filed 12/03/13 Page 3 of 3