Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01605-16/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

ANDREW R. LOPEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1605 GEB DAD P

vs.

S. COOK, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 4, 2005, the court determined that plaintiff’s third amended

complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered plaintiff to submit the necessary documents for

service by the U.S. Marshal. On December 2, 2005, the court ordered the Marshal to serve the

twenty defendants. Before the court is plaintiff’s request for additional time to serve three

defendants.

The U.S. Marshal has not executed service on defendants Farris, Singletary, and

Hansen. On February 24, 2006, service was returned unexecuted for defendant Farris. The

Marshal determined that defendant Farris is no longer employed at High Desert State Prison and

no further information was available from the California Department of Corrections about this

defendant’s location. (Court document number 36.) As to defendant Singletary, on March 21,

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 71 Filed 09/12/06 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

2

2006, service was returned unexecuted after the California Department of Corrections was unable

to locate this defendant. (Court document number 44.) Finally, as to defendant Hansen, service

was returned unexecuted on June 16, 2006 after the U.S. Marshal attempted personal service and

determined from the Department of Motor Vehicle that defendant Hansen had moved to Alaska. 

(Court document number 60.) 

On June 9, 2006, the court informed plaintiff that Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant who has not been served with a summons and

complaint within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, shall be dismissed without prejudice. 

On August 7, 2006 and August 30, 2006, plaintiff reported that he was attempting to obtain

information with respect to service on the remaining defendants and requested additional time to

do so. The court will provide plaintiff with a final opportunity to submit his USM-285 forms for

service on defendants Farris, Hansen, and Singletary. Plaintiff is cautioned that if the forms are

not returned to the court within the deadline set below, these defendants will be dismissed

without prejudice.

Plaintiff has also 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 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). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s requests for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Lastly, plaintiff has requested that the court provide funds for an investigator. The

expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by

Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not

authorize the expenditure of public funds for an investigator. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 71 Filed 09/12/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 7, 2006 and August 30, 2006 requests for an extension of

time to submit the USM-285 forms for defendants Farris, Singletary, and Hansen are granted;

2. Within forty-five days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall provide the

USM-285 forms for defendants Farris, Singletary, and Hansen;

3. Plaintiff’s failure to provide the USM-285 forms with a current address for

defendants Farris, Singletary, and Hansen will result in the dismissal without prejudice of the

defendant(s);

4. Plaintiff’s August 7, 2006 and August 30, 2006 requests for the appointment of

counsel are denied; and

5. Plaintiff’s August 7, 2006 and August 30, 2006 requests for funds for an

investigator, are denied.

DATED: September 11, 2006.

DAD:4

lope1605.peot2

Case 2:03-cv-01605-KJM-DB Document 71 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 3