Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01544/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01544-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO BARRETTO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1544 FCD DAD P

vs.

L. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 21, 2007, plaintiff’s

complaint naming more than twenty defendants was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has

filed an amended complaint naming as defendants Sergeant D. Hitt, Correctional Officer J. Look, 

Sergeant D. Mendoca, Lieutenant E.J. Schirmer, Correctional Officer L. Smith, and Captain M.

Wright.

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint appears to state cognizable claims for

relief against defendants Look, Schirmer, Smith, and Wright. If the allegations of the complaint

are proven against the defendants, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits

of this action. The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable claim against

defendants Hitt and Mendoca. The court previously advised plaintiff that he was required to

Case 2:07-cv-01544-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

allege with some degree of particularity the overt acts which each defendant engaged in

supporting his claims. Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific causal link between the actions

of defendants Hitt and Mendoca and the claimed constitutional violations. 

Also before the court is plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. The United

States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district 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); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

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

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service of the amended complaint is appropriate for the following defendants:

Look, Schirmer, Smith, and Wright.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the amended complaint filed February 6, 2008.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the

court at the same time:

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01544-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and

d. Five copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed February 6, 2008.

4. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the amended complaint on

defendants or request a waiver of service of summons from any defendant. Upon receipt of the

above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the abovenamed defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

5. Plaintiff’s February 6, 2008 request for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: March 3, 2008.

DAD:9

barr1544.1am

Case 2:07-cv-01544-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 4
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO BARRETTO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1544 FCD DAD P

vs.

L. SMITH, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 one completed summons form;

 four completed USM-285 forms; and

 five true and exact copies of the amended complaint filed February 6,

2008.

DATED: .

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01544-FCD-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 4