(PC) Drake v. Kernan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 SAM DRAKE, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01500-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT ) 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., OF COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 15 Defendants. ) ) [ECF Nos. 71, 72] 16 )

17 Plaintiff Sam Drake is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On October 8, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 20 recommending that Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel and injunctive relief be denied. 21 (ECF No. 72.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice 22 that objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 31, 23 2019. (ECF No. 79.) In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider his 24 request for appointment of investigator and improperly construed his request as seeking appointment 25 of counsel. Plaintiff is advised that the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is 26 proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the purpose 28 sought by Plaintiff in the instant request. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 2 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, 3 || the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 4 || analysis. 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 8, 2019, are adopted in full; 7 2. Plaintiffs request for appointment of an investigator and/or counsel is DENIED; and 8 3. Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. 2p || Dated: _ November 6, 2019 D _SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28