Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00452/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00452-4/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0452 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER 

DIVISION OF MANKIND, et al.,

Defendants.

On November 21, 2006, an order was entered, dismissing the complaint in this

action and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On December 11, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a document titled as objections to findings and recommendations.

In his objections, Plaintiff recounts the various difficulties he is having in

prosecuting this action. Plaintiff contends that the law library is inadequate, and he does not

have the benefit of counsel. Plaintiff requests the court to “consider an early settlement on the

claims he has already brought before the court.”

In the November 21, 2006, order, the court advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies of

the complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff failed allege specific facts that linked the individual

defendants with specific conduct that deprived Plaintiff of a protected interest. The complaint

did not fail for lack of legal analysis or research. Because Plaintiff has failed to charge the

individual defendants with conduct that constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act, the

Case 1:06-cv-00452-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/08/07 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

2

complaint was dismissed. In order for this action to proceed, Plaintiff must file an amended

complaint that cures the defects in the original complaint. The court will provide Plaintiff with

an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint.

As to Plaintiff’s contention that he lacks 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 District Court for the Southern District of

Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Terrell v. Brewer,

935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1990); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990). In the

present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Any request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of thirty days from the date of service 

of this order in which to file an amended complaint in compliance with the order of November

21,2006. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00452-OWW -WMW Document 15 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2