Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05248/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05248-0/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

ANTONIO MASSIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD EARLY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-00-5248 OWW LJO P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 75)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

(Doc. 71) 

Plaintiff Antonio Massie (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 7, 2005, defendants

Trinh and Early (“defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.

On April 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. In the motion, plaintiff

asserts that he is at a facility that does not have a law library and does not have anyone available to

assist plaintiff. Defendants did not file a response to the motion.

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

Case 1:00-cv-05248-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 05/09/05 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

and exceptional cases. “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the

likelihood of success of the merits and the ability of the [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. The court cannot make a 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, 935 F.2d at 1017. Plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel shall be denied. 

The discovery phase of this litigation concluded on January 5, 2005, and plaintiff failed to

file a timely request for an extension of the deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Therefore, there are no

grounds that allow for setting aside the scheduling order so that plaintiff may conduct further

discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Further, the State is not required to enable plaintiff to discover

grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Thus,

the bare assertion that Pilot Rock Conservation Camp does not have a law library is insufficient to

support plaintiff’s contention that he is unable to oppose defendants’ motion. 

Plaintiff should be aware whether or not he exhausted the administrative remedies with

respect to his claims and plaintiff should be aware of the basis of his claims against defendants.

Plaintiff’s own declaration, as long as it is based on plaintiff’s personal knowledge, constitutes

evidence in opposition to defendants’ motion. As such, the court can discern no reason why plaintiff

is utterly unable to oppose defendants’ pending motion. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a

statement of non-opposition within thirty days from the date of service of this order. The failure to

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed April 4, 2005, is denied,

without prejudice; 

Case 1:00-cv-05248-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 05/09/05 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

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss or for

summary judgment; and

3. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05248-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 3