Williams v. Runnels
This text of 329 F. App'x 125 (Williams v. Runnels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
329 F. App'x 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-runnels-ca9-2009.