Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342-9/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

ELROY W. BROWNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00342-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DISREGARDING UNTIMELY

OBJECTION

(Doc. 22) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff Elroy W. Browning (“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 November 10, 2005, the

Honorable Anthony W. Ishii issued an order adopting a Findings and Recommendations issued by

the undersigned on September 2, 2005. (Docs. 15, 21.) On November 23, 2005, plaintiff filed an

objection to the Findings and Recommendations, and a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

(Doc. 22.) 

Plaintiff’s objection to the Findings and Recommendations is untimely, as it was filed after

the time period in which to file an objection and after the district court issued an order adopting the

Findings and Recommendations. The objection is therefore disregarded. 

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. §

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 11/30/05 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

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

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. Terrell, 935

F.2d at 1017. 

As set forth herein, plaintiff’s objection to the Findings and Recommendations is

DISREGARDED on the ground that it is untimely, and plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel, set forth in the objection, is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2