(PC) Craver v. Floyd, 2:20-cv-02327

Plaintiff Andre Ramon Craver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to medical needs and inadequate food.
Craver is undergoing a stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma, with a month of treatment and several months of recovery, and says he will lack access to the prison law library and personal property during treatment.
Craver moved to appoint counsel citing his medical treatment and limited access to legal materials, and separately moved for "judicial intervention" seeking an order directing the R.J. Donovan warden to return his personal property after a transfer delayed receipt for 30 days.
The court previously stayed the action for participation in a Post‑Screening ADR Project and advised Craver he could seek additional extensions if treatment prevents prosecution.
The magistrate judge denied the motion to appoint counsel and recommended denial of the motion for judicial intervention (preliminary injunctive relief).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to appoint counsel	Craver: medical treatment and limited access to property/library will prevent him from prosecuting the case	Court/Defendant: no statutory authority to compel counsel; appointment only in exceptional circumstances	Denied — no exceptional circumstances: delay is temporary, Craver can likely proceed pro se post‑treatment; stay/extension is appropriate
Motion for judicial intervention (preliminary injunction to return property)	Craver: transfer delayed return of personal property; needs property before hospitalization	Court/Defendant: Craver failed to show likely irreparable harm; requested relief is unrelated to his pleaded Eighth Amendment claims; injunctive relief against non‑party warden is disfavored	Recommended denied — no showing of imminent irreparable harm; relief not based on claims in complaint; All Writs Act not applicable to compel non‑party relief

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (district courts cannot compel counsel in § 1983 suits)
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard for appointment of counsel: exceptional circumstances)
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (courts may request voluntary counsel in exceptional circumstances)
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (appointment of counsel is discretionary and limited)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding‑scale “serious questions” test for injunctions remains viable)
Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may not grant injunction based on claims not pled in the complaint)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969) (injunctive relief against non‑parties is strongly disfavored)
United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) (All Writs Act can authorize orders directed to non‑parties in narrow circumstances)
Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir. 1979) (All Writs Act aids court in preserving jurisdiction)