(PC) Calderon v. Woodford et al, No. 1:2007cv01719 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING Motions 42 44 45 47 52 53 54 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/24/2009. (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Calderon v. Woodford et al Doc. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JUAN C. CALDERON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01719-LJO-YNP PC ORDER DENYING MOTIONS v. (Docs. 42, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 54) JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Juan C. Calderon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are seven motions 17 filed by Plaintiff. 18 I. 19 20 Plaintiff’s Motions On May 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion to Clarify Legal Matters to the Court in Order to Vacate Order of April 27, 2009.” (Doc. #42.) 21 On May 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “New Motion to Reconsider the 22 Appointment of Counsel to Serve Justice in this Complex Case with Exceptional & Extraordinary 23 Circumstances and Law Cases in Support Thereof.” (Doc. #44.) 24 On May 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “New Motions For the Court to Reconsider: 25 (1) Critical Injunctions to Protect Plaintiff’s Claims and Federally Protected Rights: (2) The 26 Appointment of Counsel to Serve Justice; and (3) To Serve Complaint/Summons to Known 27 Defendants With Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances & Memorandum of Law In Support 28 Thereof”. (Doc. #45.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion to Clarify Legal Matters to the Court in Order to Vacate Order of April 27, 2009.” (Doc. #47.) 3 On June 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “New and Cured Motion to Reconsider 4 the Appointment of Counsel to Serve Justice in This Complex Atypical and Non-Ordinary Prison 5 Case with Exceptional Extraordinary Circumstances and Cases of the Law in Support Thereof.” 6 (Doc. #52.) 7 On June 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion for Verification Clarification and 8 Ratification of Defendants’ Liability for the Deprivation of Plaintiff’s Fundamental Constitutional 9 Civil and Human Rights.” (Doc. #53.) 10 On June 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “New Cured Motions to Reconsider the 11 Critical Injunctions and Appointment of Counsel with Memorandum of Law, Exceptional 12 Extraordinary Circumstances and Cases of Law in Support Thereof.” (Doc. #54.) 13 II. Discussion 14 A. 15 Plaintiff’s May 7, 2009 “Motion to Clarify Legal Matters to the Court in Order to Vacate 16 Order of April 27, 2009” requests the Court to vacate an April 27, 2009 findings and 17 recommendation, and “[r]ender a fair a reasonable decision on plaintiff’s legal motion filed on April 18 22, 2009.” (Mot. to Clarify Legal Matters to the Court in Order to Vacate Order of April 27, 2009 19 3:14-17, May 7, 2009.) Plaintiff has filed a similar motion again on May 11, 2009. The findings 20 and recommendation of April 27, 2009 has already been vacated. (Docs. #37, 56.) The April 22, 21 2009 motion that Plaintiff refers to appears to be a motion for extension of time that already has been 22 granted. (Docs. #38, 39.) Therefore, these motions are denied as moot. Motions to Vacate April 27, 2009 Order 23 B. 24 Plaintiff, through his various motions, moves for the Court to reconsider (1) his motion for 25 appointment of counsel, (2) his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and (3) Plaintiff’s request 26 to serve the complaint/summons on Defendants. Motions for Reconsideration 27 By Local Rule, applications for reconsideration must be accompanied by “an affidavit or brief 28 . . . setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each motion for which 2 1 reconsideration is sought.” Local Rule 78-230(k). Specifically, an application for reconsideration 2 must indicate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist 3 or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why 4 the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” Local Rule 78-230(k)(3), 5 (4). 6 1. Motions for Appointment of Counsel 7 Plaintiff has filed a total of four motions requesting the court to reconsider the appointment 8 of counsel on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff does not present any new facts or circumstances that did 9 not exist during Plaintiff’s first request for appointment of counsel. Nor does Plaintiff set forth any 10 other grounds that exist to justify reconsideration. The Court cannot require an attorney to represent 11 plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 12 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of 13 counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer 15 counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances 16 requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the [plaintiff] 17 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Terrell, 935 18 F.2d at 1017 (citations omitted). Plaintiff strenuously claims that his claims are extraordinary and 19 exceptional. However, upon review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 20 demonstrate that this case is extraordinary or exceptional enough to warrant requesting the voluntary 21 assistance of counsel. Put simply, there is a vast number of prisoners who, like Plaintiff, are seeking 22 counsel to represent them in civil rights actions. The Court has no power to force an unwilling 23 attorney to represent Plaintiff. There are very few, if any, attorneys volunteering their services in 24 cases like Plaintiff’s. The Court has no reasonable means of procuring the voluntary assistance of 25 counsel in every prisoner civil rights case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider the 26 appointment of counsel are denied. 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 2. Motions for Reconsideration of Injunctions 2 Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting the Court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s 3 motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff provides no new facts or circumstances justifying 4 the reconsideration of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s first motion for a 5 preliminary injunction was dismissed because the Court had dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and 6 there was no case or controversy before the Court. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, 7 and as a preliminary matter, the Court must have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los 8 Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. 9 Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 10 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). If the Court does not 11 have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “A 12 federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 13 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the 14 court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis 15 added). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the denial of his request for injunctive relief 16 is denied. 17 3. Motion to Serve Complaint 18 Plaintiff moves for the Court to reconsider his request to serve Defendants with his 19 complaint. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one for reconsideration of its screening order 20 dismissing his complaint. 21 reconsideration. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. 22 Plaintiff has the opportunity to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified by 23 the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to reconsider its screening of Plaintiff’s complaint is 24 denied. Plaintiff provides no new facts or circumstances justifying 25 C. 26 Plaintiff’s June 30, 2009 “Motion for Verification Clarification and Ratification of 27 Defendants’ Liability for the Deprivation of Plaintiff’s Fundamental Constitutional Civil and Human 28 Rights” is unclear. Plaintiff “submits this instant motion for the adequate verification, clarification Motion for Verification/Clarification/Ratification 4 1 and ratification of defendants’ general liability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2)(3) and 1986 for 2 the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights.” Plaintiff goes on to describe Defendants’ misconduct. The 3 Court is unable to discern what Plaintiff is requesting of the Court through this motion. Accordingly, 4 Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 5 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions for the Court to vacate its prior findings and 7 recommendation and rule on his motion for extension of time are moot. The Court finds that 8 Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration have not presented any new or different facts or circumstances 9 justifying reconsideration. Finally, the Court is unable to determine what relief Plaintiff is seeking 10 in his “Motion for Verification Clarification and Ratification of Defendants’ Liability. . . .” 11 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 12 1. 13 Plaintiff’s May 7, 2009 “Motion to Clarify Legal Matters to the Court in Order to Vacate Order of April 27, 2009” is DENIED; 14 2. Plaintiff’s May 7, 2009 “New Motion to Reconsider the Appointment of Counsel to 15 Serve Justice in this Complex Case with Exceptional & Extraordinary Circumstances 16 and Law Cases in Support Thereof” is DENIED; 17 3. Plaintiff’s May 7, 2009 “New Motions For the Court to Reconsider: (1) Critical 18 Injunctions to Protect Plaintiff’s Claims and Federally Protected Rights: (2) The 19 Appointment of Counsel to Serve Justice; and (3) To Serve Complaint/Summons to 20 Known Defendants With Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances & 21 Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof” is DENIED; 22 4. 23 Plaintiff’s May 11, 2009 “Motion to Clarify Legal Matters to the Court in Order to Vacate Order of April 27, 2009” is DENIED; 24 5. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2009 “New and Cured Motion to Reconsider the Appointment 25 of Counsel to Serve Justice in This Complex Atypical and Non-Ordinary Prison Case 26 with Exceptional Extraordinary Circumstances and Cases of the Law in Support 27 Thereof” is DENIED; 28 /// 5 1 6. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2009 “Motion for Verification Clarification and Ratification of 2 Defendants’ Liability for the Deprivation of Plaintiff’s Fundamental Constitutional 3 Civil and Human Rights” is DENIED; and 4 7. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2009 “New Cured Motions to Reconsider the Critical Injunctions 5 and Appointment of Counsel with Memorandum of Law, Exceptional Extraordinary 6 Circumstances and Cases of Law in Support Thereof” is DENIED. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij September 24, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
