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

LUIS DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1903 MCE DAD P

vs.

ROACH, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 February 3, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an 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). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven,

plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action with respect to

defendants Dr. A. Pomazal and Dr. Dial. However, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not set

forth any allegations concerning named defendants Roach or Sandham. Accordingly, the court

will not order service of process on those defendants.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/13/05 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

On September 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for 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. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Dr. A. Pomazal and Dr.

Dial. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed March 2, 2005.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Three copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed March 2, 2005. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/13/05 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

5. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2005 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: December 12, 2005.

DAD:4

domi1903.1+

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/13/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1903 MCE DAD P

vs.

ROACH, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 9 Filed 12/13/05 Page 4 of 4