Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00847/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00847-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0847 LKK EFB P

vs.

CHRISTOPHER NORTH,

ORDER AND

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is confined at Coalinga State Hospital, and is proceeding without counsel. He

has filed a complaint purportedly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of these documents reveals that plaintiff

is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. However, the determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma

pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is

directed to dismiss a case at any time if it determines, inter alia, that the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

an immune defendant.

In his complaint, plaintiff names as a defendant D. Christopher North, and appears to

allege that North conducted an “illegal” mental evaluation of plaintiff. Compl., Dckt. No. 1 at 3. 

Case 2:10-cv-00847-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 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

2

As relief, plaintiff requests that the court give plaintiff a “new and fair trial” and a “new and fair

evaluation” by an evaluator that “[does not] lie.” Id. He also claims to have suffered a loss of

personal liberty. Id. at 4. 

A suit under the civil rights statute is appropriate where a plaintiff challenges the

conditions of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 499 (1973). Here, plaintiff

does not appear to be challenging his conditions of confinement. Rather, he seems to be

challenging his continued commitment at Coalinga State Hospital based on the results of

defendant North’s mental evaluation. As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of

conviction or the length of confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after exhausting state judicial remedies. See id. at 500. Thus,

plaintiff’s sole remedy for invalidating his commitment in federal court and obtaining release

from the Coalinga State Hospital is through a habeas petition.

Plaintiff has requested that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request

counsel voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. 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 court finds that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and 

2. Plaintiff’s May 5, 2010 and May 26, 2010 requests for appointment of counsel are

denied.

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice to

filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

Case 2:10-cv-00847-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 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

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 17, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00847-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3