Young v. Qureshi

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/17/2017 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 16 motion to file a supplemental complaint and motion for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNY GEROME YOUNG,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-2674 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD QURESHI, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 9, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint.

20

Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed supplemental complaint. As a

21

prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma

22

pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed

23

supplemental complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it.

24

leave to file a supplemental complaint is denied.

25

For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for

If plaintiff chooses to file a supplemental complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

26

conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

27

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

28

each named defendant is involved. Id. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless
1

1

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

2

deprivation. Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

3

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation

4

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.

5

1982).

6

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

7

make plaintiff’s supplemental complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that a supplemental

8

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists

9

because, as a general rule, a supplemental complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

10

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a supplemental complaint, the

11

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a supplemental

12

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be

13

sufficiently alleged.

14

Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to

15

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States

16

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an

17

attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,

18

935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir.

19

1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider

20

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his

21

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d

22

965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel).

23

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances

24

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

25

establish exceptional circumstances that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

26

Having considered the factors under Palmer, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to

27

meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of

28

counsel at this time.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental

2

complaint and motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) are denied without prejudice.

3

Dated: March 17, 2017

4
5
6
7

Yo2674.10b

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3