Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-5/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5894-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 57)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO INFORM

COURT WHERE TO MAIL RETURNED

CHECK 

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for the

appointment of counsel and enclosed a check for $1,000.00 to retain any attorney.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 10/06/05 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

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. Further, 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. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of voluntary counsel cannot be

granted.

Further, the court cannot look for an attorney willing to take plaintiff’s case for compensation

and use the $1,000.00 to retain the attorney. Any attempts to retain an attorney for $1,000.00 must

be made by plaintiff, his family, or someone else acting on plaintiff’s behalf. The court cannot

intervene in this manner. Accordingly, the check for $1,000.00 must be returned to plaintiff. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed October 4, 2005, is denied,

without prejudice; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall inform

the court where and to whom he wishes the $1,000.00 returned by mail to; and

3. If plaintiff fails to notify the court otherwise within thirty days, the check will be

mailed to plaintiff at the California Men’s Colony. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2