Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093-3/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

MARIO A. VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTIESTEBAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01093-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 19)

Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

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

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, filed 

November 19, 2020. (ECF No. 19.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is requesting 

appointment of counsel because it is impossible to get access to the law library and he is currently 

part of the mental health system at the level of CCCMS. Plaintiff also received special education 

in the past, and it is impossible for him to understand the law. (Id.)

As Plaintiff has been informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on 

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 20 Filed 11/20/20 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

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 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). 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but 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 filed by prisoners who are proceeding pro se almost daily. 

Many of these prisoners also have limited education and receive mental health treatment. These 

litigants also must conduct legal research and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and 

found to state some cognizable claims, this does not alone indicate a likelihood of success on the 

merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff 

cannot adequately articulate his claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 19), is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 20 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 2