Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05550/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05550-7/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

ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. M. STAINER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-05550-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 85)

Plaintiff Robert Quincy Thomas (“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 January 11, 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 if

it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

Case 1:02-cv-05550-OWW -LJO Document 88 Filed 02/03/06 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

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

similar cases almost daily. The Court is unable to 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, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed January

11, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05550-OWW -LJO Document 88 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2