Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-13/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.

M. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO THE ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(Docs. 76 & 86). 

Luis Manuel Garces proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an objection (Doc. 86) to the assigned magistrate judge’s 

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel issued on October 26, 2022. (See

Doc. 76.) Plaintiff’s objects to the magistrate judge’s order on the ground that she did not 

evaluate the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues or Plaintiff’s ability to 

investigate the facts and present his claims. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he is hindered in his 

ability to investigate and present his claims because law library requests can take over two weeks 

to process. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff further states that in this case, as in another civil action brought by 

Plaintiff, Defendants have control of Plaintiff’s records and other evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s 

claims which leaves Plaintiff at a disadvantage. (Id. at 2-3). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders 

issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 87 Filed 11/16/22 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

order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Upon review of the order denying Plaintiff’s 

motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 76), the Court finds that the assigned magistrate 

judge correctly applied the applicable law in finding that the circumstances of this case do not 

warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 86) to the assigned 

magistrate judge’s order (Doc. 76) is OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2022 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 87 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 2