Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01148-3/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

TYRONE CLATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01148-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Tyrone Clation (“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 January 11, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01148-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 05/23/06 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

1

 In a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint,

with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983.

2

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. At this early stage in the proceedings, the court cannot make a

determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,1 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, filed January

11, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01148-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2