Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00160/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00160-2/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

DONALD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0160 FCD KJM P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al., ORDER AND 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 29, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint. In addition, he has filed a document called a “supplement complaint,” which purports

to add incidents and defendants but without repeating all the claims of the amended complaint. 

The amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against several of the defendants therein. It appears that the

“supplement” also states a claim against the defendants named. However, if plaintiff wishes the

court to direct service on defendants regarding both incidents, he must file a second amended

complaint combining both incidents. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00160-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/02/07 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

On January 19, 2007 plaintiff filed a request for a temporary restraining order and

a preliminary injunction, seeking to restrain the actions of K. Prosper, D.L. Runnels, Linda

Rianda, Tanya Rothschild and D.E Vanderville. Although he named these parties as defendants 

in this action, the court does not find the complaint states a claim against them and will not direct

that they be served. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not

parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.

100, 112 (1969). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order is denied.

Finally, plaintiff has 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 request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 19, 2007 request for a temporary restraining order is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s March 7, 2007 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff must notify the court

whether he wishes to proceed solely on the amended complaint; if he does not, he is directed to

file a second amended complaint within the time period given.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights

action by a prisoner. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s January 19, 2007 motion for a

preliminary injunction be denied.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00160-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/02/07 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

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, 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

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

DATED: May 1, 2007. 

2

will0160.am

Case 2:06-cv-00160-FCD-KJM Document 30 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3