Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340-3/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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01340-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND

DENYING MOTION TO AMEND AS

UNNECESSARY

(Docs. 15 and 17)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking

the appointment of counsel and a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint.

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-01340-LJO-GSA Document 19 Filed 03/06/06 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

1

 The court has not yet screened plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it contains any cognizable

claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court has many civil cases pending before it and will screen plaintiff’s

complaint in due course.

2

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.1 Terrell,

935 F.2d at 1017. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied. 

With respect to plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend, under Rule 15(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any

time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the

court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so

requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In this case, a responsive pleading has not been served and plaintiff

has not previously amended his complaint. Therefore, plaintiff may file an amended complaint

without leave of the court. The proposed amended complaint submitted by plaintiff was filed in by

the Clerk’s Office and will be screened in due course.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and motion for

leave to amend, filed January 26, 2006, are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 19 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2