Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00039-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0039 FCD KJM P

vs.

SILVEA GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three matters are before the court.

First, plaintiff seeks extensions of time to file oppositions to three motions to

dismiss. Those requests will be granted and plaintiff will be given thirty days within which to

file his oppositions. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extensions of time will be

given. If plaintiff does not file his oppositions to the pending motions to dismiss within thirty

days, the court will recommend this action be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

Next, plaintiff asks that the court order officials at his prison to provide him with

a typewriter. Plaintiff asserts that he cannot write due to strokes and he currently obtains help

from other inmates when drafting court documents is necessary. A review of the court’s file in

1

Case 2:08-cv-00039-FCD-KJM Document 89 Filed 03/16/10 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

this case reveals that plaintiff has filed fourteen hand written motions or requests since June 3,

2009. See Docket Entries #40, #42, #44, #45, #53, #54, #57, # 64, #72, # 73, #77, #83, #85 and

#86. Because it appears plaintiff has the ability to complete oppositions to defendants’ motions

to dismiss without the use of a typewriter, the court will not order prison officials to provide him

with one.

Finally, plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. 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 request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time are granted.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days within which to file oppositions to the motions

to dismiss filed by defendants Young, Chandler and James on July 30, 2009 (#52); defendants

Callison, McCue and Roche on December 8, 2009 (#69); and defendant Rohlfing on January 22,

2010 (#81). 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

2

Case 2:08-cv-00039-FCD-KJM Document 89 Filed 03/16/10 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. Plaintiff’s request that the court order officials at his prison to provide him

with a typewriter is denied. 

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

5. The Clerk of the court shall terminate all outstanding motions other than the

three pending motions to dismiss. 

DATED: March 16, 2010. 

1/md

arms0039.31

3

Case 2:08-cv-00039-FCD-KJM Document 89 Filed 03/16/10 Page 3 of 3