Mehmood v. U.S. Marshals Service et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/12/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to amend relief 10 is denied; Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel 11 is denied; and within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YASIR MEHMOOD, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2075 CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee, was recently transferred from the Sacramento County 19 Main Jail to the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City, California. Prior to his 20 transfer, the court ordered service of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) on two 21 Sacramento jail officials, Andris and Toliver. (ECF No. 9.) Both are sued in their official 22 capacity for injunctive relief only. (See id.) 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion to “amend the relief” sought in the FAC. (ECF No. 10.) In 24 addition to injunctive relief, he would like to seek compensatory damages for the weight loss and 25 “mental and emotional injuries” he suffered as a result of his jail-provided diet. (Id.) In fact, as a 26 result of his transfer, his request for injunctive relief against Andris and Toliver is moot. 27 Generally, when an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he 28 1 1 is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those 2 conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 3 1368 (9th Cir.1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Under Local Rule 220, plaintiff cannot amend the FAC by simply “tacking on” a new type 5 of relief. Thus the court will deny plaintiff’s motion. However, given his changed circumstances, 6 he may file an amended complaint for screening. 7 Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme 8 Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners 9 in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain 10 exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 12 Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find 13 the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will 14 therefore be denied. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend relief (ECF No. 10) is denied; 17 2. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 11) is denied; and 18 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff may file a Second Amended 19 Complaint. 20 Dated: March 12, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 / mehm2075.ord 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?