Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00372/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00372-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CORPORAL LONNIE R. AMERJAN, )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:08-cv-00372-OWW-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed on or about July 28,

2008, a motion to appoint counsel. The matter has been referred

to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages and other relief concerning an alleged failure

to treat Plaintiff because of a disability. Plaintiff seeks

counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), which is available

to plaintiffs under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §

794a(a)(1), and which provides that upon application by a

Case 1:08-cv-00372-OWW -SKO Document 24 Filed 08/06/08 Page 1 of 4
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

complainant and in such circumstances as the Court may deem just,

the Court may appoint an attorney for the complainant. 

Even where § 2000e-5(f)(1) provides for a procedure for

appointment of counsel, there is no constitutional right to

appointed counsel. Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of

Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9 Cir. 1982) (employment th

discrimination). Factors relevant to the trial court’s

determination whether to appoint counsel in such cases are the

plaintiff’s financial resources, efforts made by the plaintiff to

secure counsel on his own, and the meritoriousness of the

plaintiff’s claim. Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of

Alaska, 673 F.2d at 269. A showing that warrants proceeding in

forma pauperis is adequate to establish indigence. Id. However,

where reasonable efforts have been made to locate counsel, it is

not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for appointment of

counsel where there is no counsel available and willing to

undertake the representation. Bradshaw v. United States District

Court, 742 F.2d 515, 518 99 Cir. 1984). th

Because of the early stage of the proceeding, Plaintiff has

not shown the potential merit of his claim. However, the Court

finds that Plaintiff is indigent, and Plaintiff has made serious

efforts to obtain counsel. 

It further appears that no attorney contacted by Plaintiff

has been willing to take Plaintiff’s case. The Court is not aware

of any attorney available to take the case. Under the

circumstances, the motion will be denied without prejudice such

that should Plaintiff find an attorney willing to represent him,

upon the substitution of such counsel into the case, the Court

Case 1:08-cv-00372-OWW -SKO Document 24 Filed 08/06/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

will entertain Plaintiff’s application to renew his motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel IS DENIED without prejudice to renewal. 

II. Informational Order to Plaintiff

Plaintiff declares in the declaration submitted in support

of the motion regarding counsel that he is unable to obtain

adequate information in order to effect service of the complaint

by the Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). (Decl. ¶ 7.) 

The Court notes that the Defendants regarding whom Plaintiff

claims to have insufficient information for the Marshal for

service are a doctor and two Clovis City Police officers.

Plaintiff presumably has access to a public data bank kept by the

pertinent medical authorities concerning the address of the

doctor’s practice, and Plaintiff knows the location of at least

one hospital where the doctor practices. Further, the police

officers can be reached and/or served at the police station to

which the officers report.

Plaintiff IS INFORMED that it is his duty to provide

accurate and sufficient information necessary to identify the

defendants and effect service of the summons and complaint;

otherwise, sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is

appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994)

(quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)),

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472

(1995).

Plaintiff has not shown that he lacks access to sufficient

information to direct service or that he requires an extension of

time.

Case 1:08-cv-00372-OWW -SKO Document 24 Filed 08/06/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Further, Plaintiff’s ill health does not constitute a basis

for staying this proceeding. Plaintiff IS INFORMED that despite

his pro se status, he is required to comply with all pertinent

rules of court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00372-OWW -SKO Document 24 Filed 08/06/08 Page 4 of 4