Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01265-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alton E. Dean
Plaintiff
Erik Maness
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ALTON E. DEAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1265 DAD P

vs.

ERIK MANESS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has two motions pending before the court.

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

First, on June 18, 2010, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The federal in forma pauperis statute includes a limitation on the number of times a prisoner may

proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Also known as the “three strikes” rule, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding under [§ 1915] if the

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or

detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of

the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is 

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may

/////

Case 2:10-cv-01265-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 07/30/10 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

 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 1

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9 th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

2

be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury.

In this case, the court has reviewed its own records and has determined that plaintiff has had at

least three previous actions dismissed for failure to state a claim: (1) Dean v. Sullivan, 2:98-0717

LKK DAD P; (2) Dean v. Melching, et al., 1:00-5522 AWI DLB P; and (3) Dean v. Cavagnaro,

et al., 1:09-0852 SMS P. Moreover, and most recently, in Dean v. Street, et al., No. CIV S-10- 1

0672 MCE GGH P plaintiff was specifically barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under the

three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See Case No. CIV S-10-0672 MCE GGH P,

Doc. No. 15.) Thus, pursuant to § 1915(g), plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma

pauperis in this case unless he demonstrates that he is under “imminent danger of serious

physical harm.”

After a careful review of plaintiff’s pleadings, the court concludes that plaintiff

has not established that he is under imminent danger of serious physical harm. See e.g., Andrews

v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005). In his original complaint, plaintiff appears to

allege an Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim that arose from events occurring

between December 20, 2007 and April 19, 2009. (Compl. at 2.) There is no indication in the

complaint that plaintiff suffered any physical harm thereafter. Also, in his amended complaint,

plaintiff merely appears to allege that prison officials are delaying the processing of his

paperwork. (Am. Compl. at 11.) Accordingly, because plaintiff has not established that he is

under imminent danger of serious physical harm, he is barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding

in forma pauperis in this case.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Second, on July 8, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.

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

Case 2:10-cv-01265-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 07/30/10 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

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the district court may

request 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).

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 that

are 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, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances and

will therefore deny plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s June 18, 2010 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 7)

is denied as barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff

shall pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this

case.

2. Plaintiff’s July 8, 2010 motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 8) is

denied.

DATED: July 29, 2010.

DAD:sj

dean1265.3B+31

Case 2:10-cv-01265-LKK -DAD Document 9 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3