Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06324/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06324-1/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

EDWARD VARELLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:CV-03-6324-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND STAY

OF PROCEEDINGS, AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Edward Varella (“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 June 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion seeking the appointment of counsel and for a stay of the proceedings. 

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 willseek 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 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 38 Filed 06/14/05 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. 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. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and for a stay, filed June 3, 2005,

is DENIED, without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant

Beltran’s motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order; and

3. The failure to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition in compliance with

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06324-LJO -GSA Document 38 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2