Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00449/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00449-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MAURO ALEJANDRO )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 )

v. ) 

)

)

JASON WILLIAMSON #876, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00449-OWW-GSA 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(DOCUMENT # 56)

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and has requested the appointment of counsel for the

third time. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

counsel to represent indigent persons in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). Only under exceptional

circumstances may a district court appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant. See, Wilborn

v. Escalderon, 789 F. 2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). A finding of exceptional

circumstances requires an "evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of

the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See,

Wilborn, 789 F. 2d 1331. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court

will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 58 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 2
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

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The court has

denied plaintiff's motion for counsel two times. Plaintiff is now requesting that the court reconsider

those decisions. In support of his motion, plaintiff asks that the court consider a psychiatric medication

prescription indicating that Plaintiff has been prescribed Bupropion-XL, Quetiapine, and Sertraline. 

The court has considered Plaintiff's motion and attached documentation. However, the court still

does not find the required exceptional circumstances which would warrant reversal of the court's previous

orders. 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. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel shall be

denied.

In accordance with the above, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 13, 2007 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 58 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2