Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-7/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5894-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 62)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND COURTESY COPY OF DOCUMENT 62

TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 17, 2005, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for the

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has been advised that he must serve all of his filings on

defendants’ counsel and must attach a certificate of service to each filing stating that it was served

on defendants’ counsel. (Doc. 6, 1 Info. Order, filed 11/24/04.) Plaintiff may not avoid serving his st

filings on defendants’ counsel by labeling his motion as one brought ex parte. The Clerk’s Office

shall be directed to send a copy of the motion to defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff is advised that if he

files any further motions improperly brought ex parte, they will be stricken from the record.

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 will seek volunteer counsel only in the most

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 70 Filed 11/22/05 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

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

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. Terrell,

935 F.2d at 1017. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel, filed October 17, 2005, is denied, without prejudice. Further, the Clerk’s

Office is HEREBY ORDERED to send a courtesy copy of document 62 to defendants’ counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 70 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2