Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06285/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06285-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

ARLENE MARTINEZ, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

JOHN W. SNOW, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

CV F 04 6285 SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 55) 

Plaintiff, Arlene Martinez, is proceeding in propria persona

and in forma pauperis in this action. 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.

Plaintiff is proceeding with an action regarding her

treatment at her place of employment. The case has been

scheduled. On February 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a request for an

appointment of counsel whom she would pay. Her unsworn statement

indicates that she has tried to obtain representation from

numerous attorneys in several areas without success. 

The basis of Plaintiff’s request for counsel is not clear;

Plaintiff cites no authority permitting this Court to order

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 58 Filed 02/17/06 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

counsel to represent her, whether for compensation or otherwise.

Because Plaintiff is not suffering any risk to her personal

liberty, Plaintiff has no right to the appointment of counsel.

Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C.,

452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 

The Court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis. 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). However, even where a

statute provides for such appointment of counsel by the Court in

such circumstances, appointment is discretionary, not mandatory.

United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569

(9th Cir. 1995). Appointment may be made if a court finds that

there are exceptional circumstances after evaluating the

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

to articulate his or her 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 (9th Cir. 1991)

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

1986)).

Here, 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). Further,

this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious

and exceptional cases. In light of the 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. The case does

not appear to be particularly complex.

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 58 Filed 02/17/06 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 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 she has made serious

allegations which, if proved, would entitle her to relief, the

case is not exceptional.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel IS DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06285-SMS Document 58 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 3