Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00449/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00449-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURO ALEJANDRO III, CASE NO. CV F 06-0449 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DENY REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

vs. (Doc. 26.)

JASON WILLIAMSON #876, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Mauro Alejandro III (“plaintiff”) is incarcerated and proceeds pro se in this action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28, 2006, plaintiff filed his motion to request counsel.

A plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to appointment of counsel in a civil action.

See Ray v. Robinson, 640 F.2d 474, 477 (3 Cir. 1981) (citing Peterson v. Nadler, 452 U.S. F.2d 754, rd

757 (8 Cir.1971)); see also Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

th

490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts

lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. See Mallard, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814. Only under exceptional circumstances may a district

court appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9 Cir. 1986). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an “evaluation of both the th

likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). To obtain counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the moving party must

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 27 Filed 10/02/06 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

2

make a threshold showing that he sought counsel, has been unable to obtain it, and the claim is not

frivolous. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2 Cir. 1986). A court has authority to nd

appoint counsel when it is necessary to avoid fundamental unfairness. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d

885, 886 (7 Cir. 1981). th

In the present case, this Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. This Court

dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint based on its pleading deficiencies and failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is subject to a pending motion to

dismiss. 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 and is similar to

hundreds of other actions filed by disgruntled prisoners. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an attempt and

inability to obtain counsel. Failure to appoint counsel will not result in “fundamental unfairness” based

on the questionable merit of plaintiff’s claims and apparent attempts to vex law enforcement. Plaintiff

has failed to substantiate the criteria for appointment of counsel. This Court DENIES plaintiff’s request

for appointment of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00449-OWW -GSA Document 27 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2