Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00324/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00324-5/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

SAGI MUKATIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HESSELTINE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00324-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 17)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 18)

Plaintiff Sagi Mukatin (“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 January 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking the appointment of counsel and on January 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an

extension of time to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s order of November

21, 2005.

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 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious

and exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the

///

Case 1:05-cv-00324-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 01/19/06 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

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 early 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. 

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, the

court issued an order on November 21, 2005, requiring plaintiff to either file an amended complaint

or notify the court of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims in his original complaint

within thirty days. On December 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of willingness to proceed on his

cognizable claims and on January 6, 2006, plaintiff submitted the summonses and USM-285 forms

for service of process bythe Marshal. Further, plaintiff did not timely object to the dismissal without

prejudice of his claims that are not cognizable and the matter has been referred to the Honorable

Anthony W. Ishii for consideration. As such, the time within which to file an amended complaint

in compliance with the court’s order of November 21 has passed. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall

be denied.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed January 6, 2006, is DENIED;

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, filed January 17, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00324-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2