Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00511-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TATE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 511 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 

(Docs. 3, 4, 5, 6.) 

 Antonio Luis Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on April 28, 2006. Along

with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Motion requesting

Assignment of Magistrate Judge to Preside and Issue Temporary Order of Injunctive Relief,

Motion for Conference Settlement, Motion to Include Defendants, Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

The Court will resolve the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by separate order. 

The Motion requesting assignment of magistrate judge to preside is unnecessary as the

Court, in its discretion will issue such an order. As such, the Motion will be disregarded. The

request for injunctive relief will be resolved by a separate Findings and Recommendations issued

concurrent with this Order. 

With regard to the Motion for Conference Settlement, Plaintiff’s request is premature. 

The Court has a statutory obligation to first determine whether the Complaint states a cognizable

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 05/24/06 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

claim for relief. If the Complaint meets that requirement, the Court will then order that the

Complaint be served on the Defendants. Until such time as Defendants make an appearance and

any procedural issues are resolved, any request for settlement is premature. As such, the request

will be DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s request to include Defendants will also be DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff

wishes to include Defendants in the action, he must file an Amended Complaint. A plaintiff

may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of Court, before a

response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn

v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is required for all other

amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave to amend if justice

requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be futile or subject to

dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff is informed that any Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without reference

to prior pleadings, must clearly and boldly state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” and reference the

assigned case number. 

Plaintiff’s request for the Appointment of Counsel is also DENIED. The Court

cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa, 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). Without a reasonable method of securing and

compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the

likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (citations

omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 05/24/06 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

faced with similar cases almost daily. At this stage in the proceedings the Court cannot make a

determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of the record

in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Terrell,

935 F.2d at 1017. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for assignment of Magistrate Judge is DENIED as unnecessary; 

2. The Motion for Settlement Conference is DENIED as premature; 

3. The Motion to Include Defendants is DENIED; and

4. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00511-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 3