Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

STEVEN BERNARD BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6106-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

MOTION FOR A STAY

(Doc. 87, 88)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff Steven Bernard Brooks (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. On June 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a

motion seeking to stay this action until the motion for counsel is ruled upon. Defendants did not file

responses to either motion.

The court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff. Mallard v. United States District

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional

circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Without a reasonable method

of securing and compensating counsel, this court willseek volunteer counsel only in the most serious

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 90 Filed 07/13/05 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

and exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of 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.’” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (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. 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. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed June 14, 2005, is DENIED,

without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is DENIED as moot;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a

response to defendants Harvey, Erlewine, and Haro’s motion for summary judgment

filed on June 2, 2005; and

4. Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment will

result in dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order and failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 90 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2