From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turner v. Prieto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 9, 2007
No. CIV S-07-1461 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-1461 GEB DAD P.

October 9, 2007


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $4.00 will be assessed by this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff's complaint appears to state cognizable claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to appoint 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. Plaintiff's August 8, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $4.00. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Chief Commander of the Yolo County Detention Facilities filed concurrently herewith.

3. Service of the complaint is appropriate for the following defendants: Sheriff Ed Prieto, Deputy Sheriff Austin, and Deputy Sheriff Cooper.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 3 USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed July 23, 2007.

5. 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:

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 3 above; and
d. Four copies of the endorsed complaint filed July 23, 2007.

6. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the 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 above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

7. Plaintiff's August 28, 2007 motion to appoint counsel is denied.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _____________________:one three four

_____ completed summons form; _____ completed USM-285 forms; and _____ true and exact copies of the complaint filed July 23, 2007. DATED: ________________________. ______________________________ Plaintiff


Summaries of

Turner v. Prieto

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 9, 2007
No. CIV S-07-1461 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007)
Case details for

Turner v. Prieto

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY RICARDO TURNER, Plaintiff, v. ED PRIETO, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 9, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-07-1461 GEB DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007)