Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-31/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

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00088-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 112)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 109)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST (Doc. 98)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 79)

Plaintiff Vance Blaine (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On May 1, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein which

was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection and

a motion seeking the appointment of counsel on May 27, 2008. 

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 114 Filed 06/11/08 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

“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, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a

determination that Plaintiff is 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. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed May 27, 2008, is DENIED;

2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 1, 2008, is adopted in full;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed November 27, 2007, is

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims arising from his high blood pressure and

DENIED as to the other claims; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed June 11, 2007, is DENIED, without

prejudice, as procedurally deficient.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 114 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 2