Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01132-8/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

ANTONIO FAHIE,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

N. CORREA,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

1:06-cv-01132-AWI-NEW(DLB) PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. 23)

ORDER ADDRESSING AND RESOLVING

NOTICE

(Doc. 24)

Plaintiff Antonio Fahie (“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 July 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking the appointment of counsel and a notice relating to the court’s order and findings and

recommendations filed on April 10, 2007.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances,

the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable method of securing and

compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional

cases. 

Case 1:06-cv-01132-GSA Document 28 Filed 08/21/07 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-

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See Rand,

113 F.3d at 1525. 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. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel

shall be denied.

On April 10, 2007, after plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to file a second amended

complaint but declined to do so, the court recommended that this action proceed on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed October 13, 2006, against defendant Correa for use of excessive physical force, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. Plaintiff’s

notice of July 11 acknowledges that he notified the court he was willing to proceed only on his

cognizable claim against defendant Correa. However, the notice also states in a conclusory sentence that

it is a late objection to the findings and recommendations. The recommendation that this action proceed

only on plaintiff’s claim against defendant Correa was adopted by the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii on

July 2, 2007, and defendant Correa subsequentlywaived service and filed a motion to dismiss on August

3, 2007. Thus, in addition to the fact that plaintiff’s late objection contradicts his voluntary agreement

to proceed only on his claim against defendant Correa, the objection was untimely, was received after

the recommendation was adopted, and did not set forth any actual objections. By this order, the notice

has been addressed and deemed resolved.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed July 11, 2007,

is DENIED, and plaintiff’s notice, filed July 11, 2007, is deemed ADDRESSED and RESOLVED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01132-GSA Document 28 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2