Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01993/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01993-1/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

RICHARD MAQUINALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID I. ROHRDANZ, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01993-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THE 

ATTACHMENT OF SUPPORTING 

DOCUMENTS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Richard Maquinales (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 

action on November 25, 2013. The matter was transferred to this Court on December 5, 2013. 

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for attachment of 

supporting documents” and seeks to add supporting documents, including medical documents, for 

“all future decisions.” The attached documents total more than 161 pages and include a motion 

for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 11.) As discussed more fully below, Plaintiff’s request 

for the attachment of documents and request for the appointment of counsel shall be denied. 

I. Motion for the Attachment of Documents

Plaintiff seeks to add more than 150 pages of records for all future decisions. As 

Case 1:13-cv-01993-BAM Document 13 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 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 2

explained to Plaintiff in the First Informational Order issued on December 5, 2013, the Court will 

not serve as a respository for evidence. Evidence, such as medical records, need not be submitted 

with the Court until it becomes necessary to do so in connection with a motion for summary 

judgment, trial or the Court requests otherwise. Further, a pro se plaintiff need not attach exhibits 

to his complaint to prove the truth of what is said in the complaint. 

At this juncture, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). If, upon screening, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claims, but may be able to 

do so, his Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. If Plaintiff feels compelled to submit 

exhibits with any such amended complaint, he may do so, but is reminded that such exhibits must 

be attached to the complaint and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). 

However, as the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true for screening 

purposes, it is generally unnecessary to submit exhibits in support of the allegations of the 

complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for attachment of supporting documents shall be denied. 

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Contained in Plaintiff’s motion for attachment of supporting documents is 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 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01993-BAM Document 13 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 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 3

if it is 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. This court is faced with 

similar cases almost daily from indigent prisoners regarding medical care. Although Plaintiff 

contends that he cannot understand due to a disability, he has not cited specific evidence of a 

disability and the Court will not search the more than 150 pages of various medical records to 

locate one in support of his claim. Further, 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. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel shall be denied without 

prejudice.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the attachment of supporting documents is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01993-BAM Document 13 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 3