Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00740-5/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

GEORGE A. RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00740-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 15)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM (Docs. 13 and 14)

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL SHALL

COUNT AS A STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff George A. Ramirez (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On March 29, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein

which was served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the

Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On April 20, 2007, plaintiff filed

a Motion Seeking the Appointment of Counsel and on April 23, 2007, plaintiff filed an Objection

to the Findings and Recommendations.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 07/06/07 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

circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 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. In this instance, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Therefore, plaintiff is not 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. Id. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings andRecommendationsto be supported bythe record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed April 20, 2007, is DENIED;

2. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 29, 2007, is adopted in full;

3. That this action is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section

1983; and

4. This dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2