Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01470/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01470-3/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

LIONELL ROSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01470-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Lionell Rose (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 8, 2005.

Attached to plaintiff’s complaint is a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01470-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 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

similar cases almost daily. In light of the court’s recommendation that this action be dismissed for

failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted, issued concurrently with this order,

plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits. Further, 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed June 8,

2005, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01470-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2