Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06572/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06572-6/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

ALVIN R. ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. R. BUSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06572 LJO P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND FOR IMMEDIATE FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff Alvin R. Ross (“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 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a

motion seeking the appointment of counsel and immediate further proceedings concerning resolution

of defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

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

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

///

Case 1:03-cv-06572-LJO Document 83 Filed 07/18/06 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

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 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. Further, at this 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. Id. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for immediate further proceedings, this court has an

extraordinary number of cases pending before it and defendants’ motion will be resolved in due

course. Plaintiff’s request at this juncture is inappropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and for

immediate further proceedings, filed July 14, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06572-LJO Document 83 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2