Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Charles David Henderson v. Order Unknown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 10, 2011

CHARLES DAVID HENDERSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ORDER UNKNOWN, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff's motion requesting a prison transfer (Doc. 6); and (2) plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 18 and 20). Also before the court is plaintiff's initial pleading (Doc. 1).

Turning to plaintiff's motion for a prison transfer, at the time the motion was filed plaintiff was housed at High Desert State Prison. In the motion plaintiff complains of various problems at this prison and asks the court to order his transfer. A review of the docket, however, reflects that plaintiff has since filed a notice of change of address to Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff's request for a prison transfer is, therefore, moot and will be denied as such.

Turning next to plaintiff's motions 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. See 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). See 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 at this time find the required exceptional circumstances.

Finally, turning to plaintiff's initial pleading, the court notes that it does not appear to be a true complaint. Specifically, it does not clearly set forth plaintiff's claims or request for relief. Further, no defendants are named. Plaintiff will be required to file a complaint on the form provided which names all defendants and sets forth his claims as against each named defendant. In particular, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between each defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a complaint within the time provided by this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 110. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion requesting a prison transfer (Doc. 6) is denied as moot;

2. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 18 and 20) are denied;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve plaintiff with the court's form

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint by prisoners along with a copy of this order.

20110210

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.