Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00960-6/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

ALVARO QUEZADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME

(Document# 44)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment 

of counsel. (ECF No. 44.) Therein, Plaintiff also objects to Defendant’s July 14, 2016 

motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (ECF No. 42.)

I. 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 

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 45 Filed 08/10/16 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

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 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. However, 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).

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

circumstances. Even 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. 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.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion for the appointment of counsel will be 

denied without prejudice.

II. Objections to Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time

Defendant’s motion for extension of time was granted on July 19, 2016. (ECF No. 

43.) Plaintiff’s objections are therefore moot. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s only objection is that 

Defendant did not provide sufficient detail regarding her proffered reasons for the 

extension. The Court finds this objection to be without merit. Plaintiff’s objections are 

overruled.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, and

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 45 Filed 08/10/16 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

2. Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s motion for extension of time are 

OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 45 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 3