Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01402-11/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Alvaro Quezada is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 83.) 

Plaintiff contends that to assist him in conducting further discovery as to the merits of his claims. 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Lindsey 

and Gonzalez for conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, namely, unsafe 

work conditions in the main kitchen due to ice on the floor from the freezers, and against Defendants 

Lindsey and Doran for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 

ALVARO QUEZADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. LINDSEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01402-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 83]

Case 1:10-cv-01402-DAD-SAB Document 84 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the 

voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

In the present case, the Court does find that neither the interests of justice nor exceptional 

circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 

Cir. 1987); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The issues in this case are not 

particularly complex, and Plaintiff has thus far been able to adequately present his claims. Indeed, 

Plaintiff has conducted discovery in this action, filed appropriate motion to relating to discovery, and 

opposed Defendants’ prior motions. (ECF Nos. 51, 52.) While a pro se litigant may be better served 

with the assistance of counsel, so long as a pro se litigant, such as Plaintiff in this instance, is able to 

“articulate his claims against the relative complexity of the matter,” the “exceptional circumstances” 

which might require the appointment of counsel do not exist. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d at 1525 

(finding no abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when district court denied appointment of 

counsel despite fact that pro se prisoner “may well have fared better-particularly in the realm of 

discovery and the securing of expert testimony.”)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01402-DAD-SAB Document 84 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2