Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05058/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05058-1/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

GARY BARBER,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. SHIPLY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-5058 OWW SMS P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND FOR

STAY, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 13) 

Plaintiff Gary Barber (“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 February 9, 2005, the court issued a

Findings and Recommendations recommending this action be dismissed for failure to state any

claims upon which relief may be granted. On May 16, 2005, plaintiff was granted a thirty-day

extension of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On June 23, 2005,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and a stay of this action.

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

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

///

Case 1:04-cv-05058-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/27/05 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

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. In light

of the pending recommendation to dismiss for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be

granted, plaintiff is extremely unlikely to succeed on the merits. Further, 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. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be

denied. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for a stay, there are no grounds that support granting the

request. A Findings and Recommendations has been issued. Plaintiff’s recourse at this juncture is

to file an objection if he disagrees with the recommendation. The court will grant plaintiff an

additional thirty days to file objections, if plaintiff wishes to do so.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel and for a stay, filed

June 23, 2005, is DENIED, and plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order to file objections, if any, to the Findings and Recommendations issued on February 9,

2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05058-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2