Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05634/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05634-6/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 The order of October 19 had to be re-served twice. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. GAVINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PAPINPUS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05634-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OR

THIS ACTION WILL BE DISMISSED, WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 57) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 57)

Plaintiff John A. Gavino (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 4, 2006,

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 19, 2006, after more than twenty-one

days passed and plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition in compliance

with Local Rule 78-230(m), the undersigned issued an order requiring plaintiff to file a response

within thirty days. Plaintiff did not respond and on January 26, 2007, the undersigned issued a

Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action. On February 16, 2007, 1

plaintiff filed an objection in which he contended his failure to prosecute this case was the result of

health problems, which have now resolved themselves.

///

Case 1:04-cv-05634-LJO -SMS Document 58 Filed 02/21/07 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

Plaintiff will be granted thirty days within which to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. If plaintiff fails to file a response within

thirty days, this action will be dismissed.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 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. 

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.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment;

2. If plaintiff fails to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within thirty

days, this action will be dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05634-LJO -SMS Document 58 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2