Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a pro se prisoner’s motion for a preliminary injunction concerning double celling and alleged retaliation. The court denied the injunction without prejudice because the complaint had not yet been screened or served, and denied appointment of counsel because no exceptional circumstances were shown.
Holdings
- The court could not decide the preliminary-injunction motion before the adverse parties were served because Rule 65(a)(1) requires notice to the adverse party.
- Appointment of counsel was not warranted because the plaintiff had not shown exceptional circumstances.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could grant a preliminary injunction before the defendants had been served and before the complaint had been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- Whether the plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in his civil-rights action.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)
- Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981)(followed)
- Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)(limited)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…