Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00234/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00234-4/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

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONICO J. QUIROGA III,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRAVES, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-00234 GSA (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 18)

On November 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 

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 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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 

Aexceptional circumstances exist, the 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. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 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 2

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff declares that he “cannot understand legal terms and ha[s] no knowledge of the law and 

only ha[s] a G.E.D.” (ECF No. 18.) This does not make his case exceptional. At this early stage 

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

merits. Plaintiff=s amended complaint, filed on December 23, 2016, awaits screening by the 

court. (ECF No. 21.) Moreover, based on a review of the record in this case, the court finds that 

plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. See id. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be 

denied without prejudice to renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. 

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

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00234-DAD-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 2