Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01615/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01615-0/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

STEVEN VLASICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

FISHBACK, et. al, 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1615 REC LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 4.) 

 Steven Vlasich (“Plaintiff”) s a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 12, 2006, Plaintiff filed 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

Case 1:05-cv-01615-LJO -GSA Document 6 Filed 01/18/06 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

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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for the Appointment of Counsel is denied, without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01615-LJO -GSA Document 6 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2