Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00575-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

ALONZO REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0575 GEB JFM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to this court’s order, defendants have filed medical

records in support of their decision to transfer plaintiff to a mental hospital. (May 10, 2007

Response, passim.) The court has reviewed these records and finds that plaintiff is getting

psychiatric care. Moreover, plaintiff is a member of the plaintiff class in the Coleman v.

Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P. Accordingly, plaintiff’s April 20, 2007

request for order preventing his transfer to a mental hospital will be denied.

The prosecution of the instant action has been frustrated by plaintiff’s mental

health issues. This case began as an improper deprivation of a radio claim filed in state court on

September 11, 2002. Defendants removed the action to federal court and plaintiff, over the

course of four amended complaints, transformed the case from one claim, raised against seven

defendants at one state prison, to an action against 65 named defendants and numerous other Doe

Case 2:04-cv-00575-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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

defendants at 4 state prisons and the CDC-R, much of which took place after March 2004. 

Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint was dismissed and he was granted until April 3, 2007 in

which to file a fifth amended complaint. In addition to being directed to omit claims barred by

the statute of limitations and not exhausted by September 11, 2002, plaintiff was cautioned not to

include any claims raised in a more recent filing: CIV S-06-1050 LKK KJM P (civil rights

complaint against at least sixteen defendants at High Desert State Prison and CSP-SAC

concerning incidents ranging in date from December 1999 to July 29, 2004). 

However, on March 16, 2007, this action was stayed pending an assessment by the

special master in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P ordered by

the undersigned. Dr. Metzner reviewed plaintiff’s case at the request of the special master. 

At the present time, it is important for plaintiff to focus on his health issues rather

than the instant legal action. Good cause appearing, this court will recommend that this action be

stayed for a period of six months. At that time, either plaintiff or defendants may file a notice

concerning the status of plaintiff’s mental health treatment. 

In his January 31, 2007, emergency request for preliminary injunction and

temporary restraining order, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that defendants have deprived him of his

right of access to the courts by depriving plaintiff of his legal materials and failing to grant him

access to the law library. Although plaintiff contends his access to the court has been impeded, a

review of the docket in this case reflects that plaintiff has no difficulty accessing the court when

needed and otherwise. Because this action is being stayed, plaintiff does not need his legal

materials to pursue this action at the present time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for court

orders to access the law library and for his legal materials should be denied 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

Case 2:04-cv-00575-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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

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.

In his May 15, 2007 filing, plaintiff asks the court to direct defendants to provide

plaintiff with all the medical records supporting his impending transfer to a mental health facility. 

However, the certificate of service appended to defendants’ May 10, 2007 filing reflects that

defendants served plaintiff with a copy of those documents. Plaintiff’s May 18, 2007 filing

confirms that plaintiff has had access to these documents. Plaintiff’s request is denied as moot.

In light of the above, the remaining requests contained in plaintiff’s May 15, 2007

filing will also be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 14, 2007, May 15, 2007 and May 18, 2007 requests for the

appointment of counsel are denied. (Docket Nos. 76, 85, 86.) 

2. Plaintiff’s May 15, 2007 and May 18, 2007 requests for court orders are

denied. (Docket No. 85, 86.)

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 20, 2007 request for emergency order to prevent transferring

plaintiff to a mental hospital be denied. (Docket No. 78.)

2. This action be stayed for a period of six months. At that time, either plaintiff

or defendants may file a notice concerning plaintiff’s mental health treatment.

3. Plaintiff’s January 31, 2007 emergency request for preliminary injunction

and/or temporary restraining order be denied. (Docket No. 70.)

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 twenty

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

Case 2:04-cv-00575-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 22, 2007.

/001; reed0575.ord

Case 2:04-cv-00575-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 4