Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00310-5/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00310-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 16)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY

FILING FEE IN FULL OR FILE

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OR THIS

ACTION WILL BE DISMISSED

(Doc. 16)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND IFP APPLICATION TO PLAINTIFF 

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action.

On April 5, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to either pay the $350.00

filing fee in full or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 7, 2006, the Magistrate

Judge granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and gave plaintiff an additional thirty days

to comply with the order. On August 18, 2006, after more than sixty days had passed without

plaintiff complying with or other responding to the court’s order, the Magistrate Judge issued a

Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of the action. Plaintiff filed an objection

on November 6, 2006, after obtaining an extension of time. In his objection, plaintiff seeks the

appointment of counsel and for judgment on the merits.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 11/20/06 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

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

counsel to represent indigent prisoners 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). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable

method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the

most serious and exceptional cases. 

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See Rand,

113 F.3d at 1525. 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. 

Plaintiff’s objection is largely non-responsive to the issue at hand. Plaintiff’s only relevant

response to the issue are his assertions that he has only $201.00, and that he is unable to force

correctional staff to give him his money and the courts refuse to order them to do so. (Doc. 16, pg.

1.) Plaintiff then concludes that the facts of this case have already been proven. Plaintiff’s motion

for entry of judgment shall be denied. There is no basis for such an order.

Assuming the truth of plaintiff’s position that he only has $201.00, plaintiff is eligible to

proceed in forma pauperis in this action and would not be ordered by the court to tender the filing

fee in full. However, plaintiff is required to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which

he has not done. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff makes no showing in his objection that he filled

out an application to proceed in forma pauperis and gave it to prison officials for completion and

submission to the court.

In the interest of leniency, the court will provide plaintiff with an additional thirty days to file

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. If plaintiff fails to do so, the Findings and

Recommendations will be adopted in full and this action will be dismissed, without prejudice.

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 11/20/06 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment and for the appointment of counsel is

DENIED;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff an application to proceed in forma pauperis

by a prisoner;

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

application to proceed in forma pauperis; and

4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Findings and Recommendations filed

on August 18, 2006, will be adopted in full and this action will be dismissed, without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00310-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 3