Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00226/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00226-3/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

MARCUS D. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. STOLMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00226-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(Doc. 15)

On January 9, 2006, plaintiff Marcus D. Wilson (“plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking the

appointment of counsel. 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 serious and exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation

of both ‘the likelihood of success ofthe merits and the ability ofthe [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. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a

Case 1:05-cv-00226-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 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

 The court has not yet screened plaintiff’s amended complaint to determine whether it contains any 1

cognizable claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court has many civil cases pending before it and will screen

plaintiff’s complaint in due course.

2

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, 1

935 F.2d at 1017. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed January

9, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00226-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2