Williams v. Runnels

Ninth Circuit

Williams v. Runnels

329 F. App'x 125

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 6, 2009·No. No. 08-15901·Published

Opinion

[126]*126MEMORANDUM

**

Johnathan S. Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order disregarding his request to file a belated second amended complaint in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly disregarded Williams’s request to file a second amended complaint after the case was closed. See id. at 1227 (“It is incumbent upon us to preserve the district courts’ power to manage their dockets without being subject to endless non-compliance with case management orders.”).

Williams’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive, and his request for injunctive relief is denied. His request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring “exceptional circumstances” for the appointment of counsel). All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[126]*126MEMORANDUM

**

Johnathan S. Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order disregarding his request to file a belated second amended complaint in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly disregarded Williams’s request to file a second amended complaint after the case was closed. See id. at 1227 (“It is incumbent upon us to preserve the district courts’ power to manage their dockets without being subject to endless non-compliance with case management orders.”).

Williams’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive, and his request for injunctive relief is denied. His request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring “exceptional circumstances” for the appointment of counsel). All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Williams v. Runnels, 329 F. App'x 125 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

329 F. App'x 125 (Williams v. Runnels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Opinion

Related