Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00372/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00372-2/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 TATER-ALEXANDER, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CORPORAL LONNIE R. AMERJAN, )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:08-cv-00372-OWW-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed on March 14, 2008, a

complaint for damages and other relief concerning alleged

violations of civil rights. On the same date, he lodged a motion

for the appointment of counsel. 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.

By separate order the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file a

first amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service

of the order.

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). Appointment of counsel by the Court

Case 1:08-cv-00372-OWW -SKO Document 14 Filed 04/08/08 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

in such circumstances 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 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 (9 Cir. 1991) (citing Wilborn v. th

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9 Cir. 1986)). th

Here, Mallard v. United States District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Without a

reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this

court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

exceptional cases. 

In light of the early 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. Further, Plaintiff’s

claim is not particularly complex.

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. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00372-OWW -SKO Document 14 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 2