Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02732/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02732-7/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

MALIK JONES, No. CIV S-06-2732-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C. STIEFERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

(Doc. 18), filed on September 10, 2007.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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). See 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 at this time find the required exceptional

circumstances. 

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 19 Filed 09/14/07 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

However, to the extent plaintiff needs additional time to comply with this court’s

August 15, 2007 order, that request will be granted. Plaintiff will have until October 22, 2007 to

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15, 220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because,

as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed by this order, will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint and for

failure to comply with court orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is granted; and

3. Plaintiff has until October 22, 2007 to file an amended complaint.

DATED: September 13, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02732-KJM-CMK Document 19 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2