Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01856-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Recovery of IRS Tax

---

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

ALFRED EUGENE SHALLOWHORN, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES (IRS), et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:07-cv-1856-OWW-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY (DOC. 17)

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a civil action concerning disputed

entitlement to tax refunds in 2003 through 2006. 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. 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed on

August 27, 2008, for reconsideration of this Court’s denial of

his previous motion for appointment of counsel, filed on July 23,

2008. The motion appears to be intended for consideration not by

the District Judge, but rather by the undersigned Magistrate

Judge, who signed the scheduling order referred to by Plaintiff

in the first line of his motion for reconsideration.

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 09/12/08 Page 1 of 3
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

No opposition or notice of non-opposition has been filed.

The grounds of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration are

that although Plaintiff can read, Plaintiff cannot understand the

Court’s orders and does not know what to do; further, the prison

where Plaintiff is incarcerated has been in lock down for an

undetermined amount of time.

 The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s circumstances. However,

the power of the Court is limited with respect to assignment of

counsel in civil cases. The Court may request an attorney

voluntarily to represent a person proceeding in forma pauperis

who is unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appointment

of counsel by the Court in such circumstances is discretionary,

not mandatory. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54

F.3d 564, 569 (9 Cir. 1995). Appointment may be made if a court th

finds that there are exceptional circumstances after evaluating

the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the

party to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

of the legal issues involved; the factors must be viewed

together. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9 Cir. 1991) th

(citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. th

1986)).

Here, regardless of Plaintiff’s status as an indigent

prisoner who suffers from some defects in understanding, this

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). Without a reasonable method of

securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer

counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 3
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

In light of the early stage of the proceedings, the Court

cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed

on the merits. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Further, at this point

it does not appear that Plaintiff’s claim is particularly complex

because it relates to a determination of one type of tax for

several years, and only one party defendant is involved. In light

of the papers filed by Plaintiff to date, Plaintiff appears to be

capable of articulating his claims pro se.

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. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel, filed August 27, 2008, IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01856-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 09/12/08 Page 3 of 3