Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01058-12/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 Ralph Garbarini is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 64.) 

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 

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.

///

///

///

///

RALPH GARBARINI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WAYNE ULIT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 64]

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 65 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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). This action is proceeding against 

Defendants Doctors Ulit, Smith, Moon, and Wang for deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need. Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action. (ECF 

No. 64.) 

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.”) Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims in his first amended complaint, and has 

filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits. (ECF Nos. 50, 59.) The Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s arguments relating to the need to conduct discovery, including deposing each of the 

Defendants is not exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. See

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that, “if all that was required to 

establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for 

development of further facts, practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”) In addition, 

circumstances common to almost all prisoners such as limited knowledge of the law and lack of funds 

to hire counsel do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary 

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 65 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

assistance of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01058-AWI-SAB Document 65 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 3