Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00413/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00413-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL B. DAVENPORT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0413 MCE KJM P

vs.

R. McKEAN, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on claims arising under the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants on whom service was ordered all are prison officials. 

Plaintiff’s complaint concerns events that occurred at High Desert State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defenses appearing in

defendant’s answer was filed on March 28, 2005. A motion to strike an affirmative defense

should be granted only if the defense is insufficient as a matter of law. U.S. v. Iron Mt. Mines,

812 F. Supp. 1528, 1535 (E.D. Cal. 1992). 

The court will strike defenses 3, 4 and 5. In defense three, defendants assert

Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits lawsuits against a state in

federal court, and also bars suits against state officials based on state law violations. Air

Case 2:04-cv-00413-MCE -KJM Document 43 Filed 02/06/06 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 1

 The court’s screening order has the effect of defining the parameters of the complaint. 

2

Transport Ass’n of America v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 833 F.2d 200, 203-04 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Neither a state nor a state agency are defendants in this action, and no claim is based on a state

law violation. See November 1, 2004 Order at 2:4-21.1 Defenses four and five concern claims

arising under state law. As noted, there are no state law claims pending. See id. As to the

remainder of defendants’ defenses, plaintiff has not shown they are insufficient as a matter of

law. 

Plaintiff also has requested 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 under 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 therefore will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 28, 2005 motion to strike affirmative defenses is granted as

to defenses 3, 4 and 5 appearing in defendants’ answer. In all other respects, plaintiff’s motion is

denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s October 7, 2005 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: February 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/dave0413.msd

Case 2:04-cv-00413-MCE -KJM Document 43 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2