Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-9/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HERNANDEZ, 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. 67). 

Luis Manuel Garces (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 

No. 67). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; because 

the issues involved in this case are complex and involve many defendants; because he does not 

receive his legal mail in a timely fashion, and he cannot easily access the law library; because his 

previous attempts to acquire pro bono counsel on his own were unfruitful; and because Plaintiff 

has limited knowledge of the law and is illiterate in English. 

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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 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 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 10/26/22 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

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).

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 

adequately articulate his claim.

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

bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 2