(PC) Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda et al, No. 2:2021cv00932 - Document 35 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/5/2021 DENYING plaintiff's 22 request for the appointment of counsel and RECOMMENDING plaintiff's 22 motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda et al Doc. 35 Case 2:21-cv-00932-JAM-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-0932-JAM-EFB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M. VELASQUEZ-MIRANDA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, moves for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 22. He also requests the appointment of 19 counsel. Id. 20 In his motion for preliminary injunction,1 plaintiff states that defendant N. Holets recently 21 approached plaintiff’s cell at the California Health Care Facility and spewed the following racist 22 and retaliatory threats, “[Y]our nigger ass is done. We told your nigger cripple ass back on 23 10/23/2018, don’t file no 602 nigger or shit with our fucking name on it to no fuckin judge or 24 1 25 26 27 28 A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. v. Tapeprinter, Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir.1964). The moving party must prove that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00932-JAM-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 3 1 D.A., or no dirty fuckin blood-suckin lawyers and what did you do nigger? In superior court you 2 filed a torts! Now I’ma tore your nigger ass like we did 10/23/2018. In protective custody, fuck 3 your mental health, we about to finish fuckin up your right wrist like Officer Lopez did on May 4 19, 2021 . . . with the handcuffs you writing days are over nigger bitch.” ECF No. 1 at 1-2. 5 In plaintiff’s request for relief, he asked that he be transferred to the R.J. Donovan 6 Correctional Facility. Id. at 3-4. On the same day plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction 7 was docketed, plaintiff’s address was updated to show that he is now housed at R.J. Donovan. 8 Thus, the threat posed by defendant Nolet at the California Health Care Facility and the remedy 9 requested by plaintiff is moot. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief is 10 11 not warranted. Plaintiff also requests the appointment of counsel. District courts lack authority to require 12 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 13 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 14 to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 15 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the 17 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 18 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 19 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 20 circumstances in this case. 21 22 23 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22) is DENIED. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 22) be DENIED. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 Case 2:21-cv-00932-JAM-EFB Document 35 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 3 1 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 2 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 3 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: August 5, 2021. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
