Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01102/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01102-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

 In his objections, plaintiff requested the court appoint him counsel “either pro bono or on

contingency.” The district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request counsel to

represent an indigent civil litigant. First, however, the court must evaluate both (1) the likelihood

of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of

the complexity of the legal issues involved. See, e.g., Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th

Cir.1991). On the record before it, the court cannot find a likelihood of success on the merits. See

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.1984) (motions to appoint counsel granted only

in exceptional circumstances and at discretion of trial court). Accordingly, it declines to request

counsel to represent plaintiff. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK C. BERGERON, 

Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-1102 FCD GGH PS

vs.

KING MOHAMED VI, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On October 20, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on

October 26, 2005, , and they were considered by the district judge.1

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 11/08/05 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

2

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 20, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED:November 7, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01102-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2