Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05094/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05094-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-cv-05094-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 102)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (Doc.

103)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS, NUNC PRO TUNC TO

JANUARY 29, 2007 (Docs. 106 and 107)

Plaintiff Marcus R. Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 29, 2006, the

undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion for

summary judgment be granted, and on December 20, 2006, the undersigned issued an order granting

plaintiff an additional thirty days within which to file objections. 

On January 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel, a motion

seeking leave to file a response to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts along with a proposed

response, a motion seeking an extension of time to file objections, and objections.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

Case 1:02-cv-05094-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. Further, the court has recommended defendants’ be granted summary

judgment, thus concluding this action in its entirety. Therefore, plaintiff is not likely to succeed on

the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff

cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel shall be denied. 

With respect to plaintiff’s desire to respond to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts,

defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on June 1, 2006, plaintiff filed an opposition

on July 21, 2006, and defendants filed a reply on July 31, 2006. The motion was deemed submitted

upon the filing of the reply, Local Rule 78-230(m), and the undersigned addressed the motion in a

Findings and Recommendations filed on November 20, 2006. Plaintiff may not now, after

benefitting from receipt of the court’s Findings and Recommendations, go back and supplement his

opposition to the motion. The motion has been addressed and plaintiff’s only recourse at this

juncture is to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion

for leave to file a response to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts shall be denied. 

Finally, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections along with

objections. In as much as plaintiff filed objections on January 29, 2007, plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time shall be granted, nunc pro tunc to January 29, 2007.

Case 1:02-cv-05094-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed January 29, 2007, is

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a response to defendants’ statement of undisputed

facts, filed January 29, 2007, is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file objections, filed January 29, 2007,

is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc to January 29, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05094-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 3