Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02447/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02447-4/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LOUIS JENKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2447 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 On July 13, 2015, this court issued findings and recommendations, recommending the 

dismissal of this prisoner civil rights action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to file an 

amended complaint.1 See ECF No. 12. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address 

and requested a 30-day extension of time within which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff 

 

1

 In a prior order, filed May 6, 2015, the court found that plaintiff’s original complaint was 

frivolous for the following reasons, ECF No. 8 at 2 (fns. omitted): 

The complaint improperly names twenty plaintiffs (plaintiff may 

proceed only on his own behalf), while the only named defendant is 

Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. The body of the complaint, while 

lengthy and filled with legal jargon, fails to identify any specifically 

challenged conduct by any named defendant and fails to articulate 

any identifiable relief sought by plaintiff. 

Nevertheless, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that conforms with 

the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states a cognizable claim 

under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 2:14-cv-02447-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/23/15 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

states that he has “been transferred to over four (4) different prisons due to plaintiff receiving 

specialized ‘Cancer Chemo Therapy,’ on going and currently receiving outside hospital treatment 

twice a week, and physically not being able to move. . . .” ECF No. 13 at 1. For good cause 

shown, plaintiff’s request for additional time will be granted.2

 Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel. ECF No. 11. In addition to asserting 

circumstances common to most prisoners, including indigence, lack of legal education, limited 

law library access, and limited ability to investigate due to imprisonment, plaintiff asserts that his 

serious physical and mental illnesses combined with the side effects to his medications (plaintiff 

states that he is delusional, is on “Psy/Morphine Medication,” and is in a “drugged stupor most of 

the time”), render him unable to represent himself. Id. at 1. 

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 district 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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). When determining 

whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of 

success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances 

common to most prisoners do not establish exceptional circumstances. 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances at the 

 

2

 The court also previously directed plaintiff to submit a fully completed in forma pauperis 

application. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion filed June 3, 2015, ECF No. 10, is adequate; 

plaintiff need not submit further information in support of his in forma pauperis application. The 

court will defer ruling on the application until plaintiff submits an amended complaint. 

Case 2:14-cv-02447-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/23/15 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

present time, primarily because plaintiff has not submitted a complaint with allegations sufficient 

to state a cognizable claim. See n.1, supra. The court remains uninformed about the reasons that 

plaintiff initiated this suit, and thus cannot ascertain the complexity of the issues involved or 

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for 

appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 13, 2015, ECF No. 12, are vacated; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 11, is denied without 

prejudice; and 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 13, 

is granted; plaintiff shall file3

 his amended complaint within thirty days after the filing date of this 

order. 

DATED: July 23, 2015 

 

3

 The filing date of plaintiff’s amended complaint will be determined by the prison mailbox rule, 

that is, the date when plaintiff signs the amended complaint and gives it to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox 

rule). 

Case 2:14-cv-02447-KJM-AC Document 15 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 3