Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00259/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00259-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WAYNE ARY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY )

OF KERN AND HONORABLE JUDGE )

McNUTT )

 )

Defendants. )

 )

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00259 AWI TAG

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

(Docs. 1, 5 and 8)

Plaintiff, an inmate at Wasco State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and also moved

appointment of counsel. (Docs. 5 and 8).

On June 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendations to Deny

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and to Dismiss Complaint. (Doc. 13). The Report and

Recommendations gave notice that any party could file objections within thirty days. (Doc. 13,

p. 3). In response, plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendations,” in which he did not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s findings, but noted that

he had also sought appointment of counsel in addition to in forma pauperis relief. (Doc. 14).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this

case. After carefully evaluating the record, including plaintiff’s complaint and his request to

proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel, this Court finds that the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendations is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Case 1:06-cv-00259-AWI -TAG Document 15 Filed 06/29/06 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

Furthermore, while it is true that the statute providing for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), contemplates the possibility of appointment of counsel, it is also true that

“[c]ounsel should only be appointed in exceptional circumstances, based on such factors as the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims in light

of their complexity.” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Moreover,

“[a] finding of ‘exceptional circumstances’ requires an evaluation of both ‘the 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.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

Cir. 1986)(citation omitted). Here, as reported by the Magistrate Judge, there is no likelihood of

success on the merits insofar as plaintiff’s claims are against defendants that are immune from

prosecution under the Eleventh Amendment and under the doctrine of judicial immunity. 

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s June 7, 2006 Report and

Recommendations;

2. DENIES plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8);

3. DENIES plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 5);

4. DISMISSES, without prejudice, plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1); and

5. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00259-AWI -TAG Document 15 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 2