Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-53/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 258)

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.1(ECF 

No. 258). Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, that his confinement in segregation 

1 The Court notes that, on the same day Plaintiff filed the instant motion, Plaintiff also filed an 

interlocutory appeal regarding the Court’s prior discovery orders and denial of Plaintiff’s requests for 

the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 256). On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second interlocutory 

appeal of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to establish good cause for failing to abide by the 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 262). Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeals of this Court’s discovery orders and 

orders denying Plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of counsel do not divest the Court of jurisdiction 

to conduct further proceedings. See Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007) (“When 

a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not 

transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until 

the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply.”); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 

F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted) (“Discovery orders are not final appealable 

orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291[.]”); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 271 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 5
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

greatly limits his ability to access the law library, and that Plaintiff is illiterate and has a limited 

knowledge of the law. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also states that he has attempted to seek counsel on 

his own but has been unsuccessful. (Id.)

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 

952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an 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.

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, a district court must evaluate 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.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 790 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 1009). 

Here, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s claims

involve the use of force by Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, Huerta, Cathey, Wolf, and

Allison; deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by Defendants Hernandez, Hubbard, 

Gill, Ibarra, Camacho, Aragon, Ramadan, and Boyd; and procedural due process violations by 

Defendants Gamboa, Babb, and Sanders.2 Plaintiff argues that he has demonstrated the

Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1985)) (“Because the denial of counsel in a civil rights action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not resolve an important issue completely separate from the 

merits. . .it is not immediately appealable.”).

2 Defendants Aragon, Boyd, Camacho, Gill, Ibarra, and Ramadan (“Medical Staff Defendants”) 

filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his available 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 271 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 5
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

likelihood of success on his claims because his “allegations, if proved, clearly would establish a

constitutional violation.” (ECF No. 258 at 7). However, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence

that suggests he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims in this case.

3 Further, Plaintiff’s

factual allegations and claims are not atypical from most pro se prisoner civil rights cases, and

thus, do not present complex legal issues. 

Plaintiff’s arguments that an attorney would be in a better position to investigate and 

research Plaintiff’s claims does not amount to exceptional circumstances. See Rand, 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 betterparticularly in the realm of discovery and the securing of expert testimony”); Wilborn, 789 F.2d 

at 1331 (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se 

litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the 

case”). While the Court appreciates Plaintiff's efforts to secure counsel, the inability to find 

counsel is not “a proper factor for the Court to consider in determining whether to request 

counsel.” Howard v. Hedgpeth, No. 1:08-cv-00859-RTB-PCL, 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Apr. 20, 2010).

Additionally, Plaintiff’s argument that he is otherwise disadvantaged without the help of 

counsel due to the overall conditions of his confinement and his personal capabilities also fails 

to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.4See Jones v. Kuppinger, 13CV451-WBS (AC), 

administrative remedies as to his Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims against 

them. (ECF No. 191). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Plaintiff filed a 

timely grievance that properly exhausts his claims against the Medical Staff Defendants via Zoom 

videoconference on May 28, 2024. (ECF No. 267). The Court will issue its evidentiary findings and 

recommendations in due course. Defendants Allison, Gamboa, and Babb have also filed a motion for 

summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Allison and 

Plaintiff’s due process claims against Defendants Gamboa and Babb based on the fabrication of 

evidence. (ECF No. 214). Defendants Allison, Gamboa, and Babb’s motion for summary judgment 

remains pending before the Court. 

3 A review of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendants Allison, Gamboa, 

and Babb’s motion for summary judgment does not clearly establish the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success 

at trial on those claims, should those claims proceed past summary judgment.

4 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s first interlocutory appeal generally asserts that appointment of 

counsel is warranted because Plaintiff is mentally handicapped and has been placed in a higher level of 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 271 Filed 05/30/24 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

2015 WL 5522290, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“Circumstances common to most 

prisoners, such as a deficient general education, lack of knowledge of the law, mental illness 

and disability, do not in themselves establish exceptional circumstances warranting 

appointment of voluntary civil counsel.”); Cardwell v. Kettelhake, 2010 WL 3636267 at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010) (plaintiff's failure to complete high school, his alleged difficulty 

responding to pleadings and understanding procedural rules, and his limited access to the law 

library do not establish “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel as they 

are “experience[s] common to many prisoners”).

Further, Plaintiff's arguments based on his demand for a jury trial and conflicting 

testimony also fail to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Courson v. Cochran, No. 08-

CV-871 JAH (WMc), 2009 WL 10725719, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2009) (“[V]irtually every 

trial involves credibility issues.”); Ramirez v. Gutierrez, No: 20-cv-01109-MMA(BLM), 2022 

WL 959647, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) (finding such concerns do not warrant 

appointment of counsel before the claims have survived summary judgment) (citing Leon v.

Celaya, No. 20-cv-0899-AJB-BGS, 2021 WL 533514, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021)).

Finally, where a pro se civil rights plaintiff shows he has a good grasp of basic litigation 

procedure and has articulated his claims adequately, he does not demonstrate the exceptional 

circumstances required for the appointment of counsel. See Palmer, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009) (no abuse of discretion in denying appointment of counsel where plaintiff “was wellmental health care. (See ECF No. 256 at 3). Plaintiff has also made similar arguments in prior motions 

for the appointment of counsel. Although mental disability may be grounds for appointment of counsel

in some cases, there must be substantial evidence of a plaintiff's incompetence. Fletcher v. Quinn, No.

3:15-cv-2156-GPC-NLS, 2018 WL 840174, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018) (pro se prisoner’s status as a

patient in CDCR’s Enhanced Outpatient Program insufficient to warrant appointment of counsel). “The 

court must be able to find a nexus between the mental disorder and the plaintiff's ability to articulate his 

claims.” Id.; see also McElroy v. Cox, No. 08-1221-JM (AJB), 2009 WL 4895360, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 

11, 2009). Plaintiff’s instant motion does not establish that his mental disabilities are incapacitating, that 

he is incompetent, or that his mental disability or mental impairments significantly impede his ability to 

articulate his claims or litigate his case. West v. Dizon, No. 12CV1293-DAD P, 2014 WL 114659, at *4 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) (denying appointment of counsel when mental disability was only alleged and 

plaintiff submitted no evidence as to the “nature or effects” of the disability). 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 271 Filed 05/30/24 Page 4 of 5
5

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

organized, made clear points, and presented evidence effectively”). Based on a review of the 

record to date, the Court is unable to find that Plaintiff is unable to adequately articulate his 

claims. Plaintiff has diligently litigated his case for more than three years now. Plaintiff has 

participated in an evidentiary hearing. He has filed numerous motions, including discovery 

motions and injunctions. Further, Plaintiff has opposed dispositive motions filed by 

Defendants. 

Accordingly, no exceptional circumstances exist warranting the appointment of counsel.

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

pro bono counsel (ECF No. 258) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 271 Filed 05/30/24 Page 5 of 5