Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00588/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00588-11/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

ERIC V. HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SHERMAN, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docs. 27 and 28)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTION 

(Docs. 25 and 28) 

Plaintiff Eric V. Holmes (“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 August 17, 2006, the court

issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was granted thirty days within which to file

an Objection. Since that time, plaintiff has sought and been granted two extensions of time. On

February 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a third motion seeking an extension of time, on March 13, 2007,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel, and on March 15, 2007, plaintiff filed

a fourth motion seeking an extension of time and the appointment of counsel.

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

///

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 03/19/07 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

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

“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, in light of the pending recommendation that this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim, 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. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of

counsel shall therefore be denied.

Plaintiff has had more than seven months within which to draft and file an Objection to the

Findings and Recommendations. The court will grant plaintiff’s February and March motions for

additional time, but plaintiff is warned that this is his final extension of time. The Findings and

Recommendations will be referred to Judge Ishii for consideration after thirty days, regardless of

whether or not plaintiff files an Objection. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, filed March 13, 2007, and March

15, 2007, are DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time, filed February 8, 2007, and March 15,

2007, are GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which to

file an Objection; and

///

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 03/19/07 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

4. No further extensions of time will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3