Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04887/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04887-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JCSALL\2007\07-4887 Bartolome v. Doe\ifp and dismissal order.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

D. BRIAN F. BARTOLOME,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOES 1 -10,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4887 JCS

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND [Docket Nos. 3 & 7]

Plaintiff brings this action in pro se and has filed an Application To Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“the Application”). He has also filed a Motion for the Appointment of an Attorney

(“Appointment of Counsel Motion”). The complaint was assigned to a United States Magistrate

Judge and Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Based

upon the information contained in Plaintiff’s Application, the Application is GRANTED. For the

reasons stated below, however, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Appointment of Counsel Motion and

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent

plaintiff where it finds “exceptional circumstances.” See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir. 1990). A determination that a case involves exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of

both the merits of the case and the ability of the pro se plaintiff to articulate his claims in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court does

not find Plaintiff’s complaint to be “exceptional.” Because the complaint fails to identify any

Case 3:07-cv-04887-JCS Document 12 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JCSALL\2007\07-4887 Bartolome v. Doe\ifp and dismissal order.wpd 2

specific defendants or conduct, the Court cannot determine whether the case has merit or whether

complex legal issues warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Appointment of Counsel

Motion is DENIED.

Further, the Court concludes that the allegations in the complaint fail to state any cognizable

claim and therefore DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

(requiring court to sua sponte dismiss a case when it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which

relied can be granted). Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). Where a plaintiff is

proceeding in pro se, the court must construe the complaint liberally. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles

Police Dep’t, 839 F. 2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Nonetheless, the complaint must be sufficient to

place defendants on notice of the nature of the claims asserted against them. McKeever v. Block,

932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Here, Plaintiff fails to meet that standard. 

Plaintiff shall be permitted to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date

of this order. In his complaint, Plaintiff shall clearly identify the specific conduct that forms the

basis of his claims, as well as the defendants who are being sued. The Clerk is instructed to dismiss

this action with prejudice if an amended complaint is not filed within thirty days of the date of this

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2008

____________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04887-JCS Document 12 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2