Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00071/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00071-5/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 is currently a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. At the time Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he was a 

pretrial detainee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United 

States Magistrate Judge on February 16, 2016. Local Rule 302.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed November 

10, 2016. Plaintiff seeks appoint of counsel to assist him in litigating this matter.

Plaintiff does not have a 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.

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. CHAPA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:16-cv-00071-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[ECF No. 26]

Case 1:16-cv-00071-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 11/14/16 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

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 not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it 

assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if 

proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually 

assault in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal issues present in this action are not 

complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set forth his allegations in the complaint. However, at this early 

stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 

the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that plaintiff 

cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00071-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2