Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02691/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02691-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARVELLO L. TUFONO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMANDEEP DHILLION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-2691 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a county inmate, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they failed to prescribe 

him anti-seizure medication. Plaintiff has requested a preliminary injunction and the appointment 

of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, this court recommends plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction be denied and denies plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff alleges he informed all defendants, who are doctors at California State Prison, 

Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”), that he had a history of seizures but all refused to prescribe him antiseizure medication. (ECF No. 1.) As a result, plaintiff suffered seizures which caused him 

injuries. By separate order, this court finds plaintiff has stated plausible claims for relief against 

all defendants and orders service of the complaint.

Attached to plaintiff’s complaint is a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 1 at 

13.) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to provide him with anti-seizure medication. 

Case 2:23-cv-02691-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 03/04/24 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

A party requesting preliminary injunctive relief must show that “he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief 

hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean 

Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

The principle purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to 

render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (3d ed.). Implicit in this required showing is 

that the relief awarded is only temporary and there will be a full hearing on the merits of the 

claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. Further, an injunction against 

individuals not parties to an action is strongly disfavored. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment . .

. resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party . . . .”).

Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at CSP-Sac. After he filed his complaint and motion for 

preliminary injunctive relief, he notified the court that he is now incarcerated at the Sacramento 

County Jail. (See ECF No. 6.) Because plaintiff is no longer in the custody of the Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation and is no longer under the care of defendants, any order directed 

to defendants to provide plaintiff with medication would be ineffective. Therefore, this court will 

recommend plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief by denied without prejudice.

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff argues he requires the appointment of counsel because he needs help conducting 

legal research and preparing legal documents. (ECF No. 5.) 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). 

Case 2:23-cv-02691-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 03/04/24 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

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). Circumstances 

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 

counsel. In the present case, plaintiff has adequately articulated his claims. This court does not 

find any exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5) is denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this case.

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief 

(ECF No. 1) be denied without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations will be 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 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: March 1, 2024

DLB:9/DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/tufo2691.31&tro fr

Case 2:23-cv-02691-DAD-SCR Document 9 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 3