Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-38/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

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRANCIS,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-CV-00529-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST TO FILE 

MOTION IN LIMINE

Docs. 130, 131, 132, 133

Pending before the court are plaintiff Sekona’s motion to appoint counsel and motion 

requesting permission to file a motion in limine. Docs. 130, 131.1

Sekona, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his civil rights complaint filed on April 24, 

2019. Doc. 1. The court granted Sekona’s application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis

on May 29, 2019. Doc. 8. Sekona’s two previous requests for counsel were denied. See Docs. 

70, 98. Sekona again renews his request for an attorney, asserting generally that he lacks 

understanding of court rules and procedures as a pro se plaintiff, that English is not his first 

language, and that he is entitled to counsel under the 14th Amendment to ensure his equal 

treatment under the law. Doc. 131. Sekona also moves for the court’s permission to file a motion 

in limine. Doc. 130.

1 Sekona filed duplicative copies of his motions. Sekona’s motion docketed at Doc. 132 is a 

duplicate of Doc. 131. Sekona’s motion docketed at Doc. 133 is a duplicate of Doc. 130. 

Accordingly, Doc. 132 and Doc. 133 are stricken as duplicative.

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 134 Filed 07/12/24 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

I. ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, the court advises Sekona that, as set out in the amended final pretrial 

order, he has until July 29, 2024, to file any motions in limine. Doc. 127 at 1, 5. Both parties’ 

motions in limine are due by July 29, 2024; oppositions to the other party’s motions in limine are 

due by August 7, 2024. Id. As the court has already granted permission for Sekona to file a 

motion in limine, he need not request further permission to do so. To the extent Sekona intends 

his motion filed at Doc. 130 to be a motion in limine, the court will construe it as such and will 

address it following the above-noted briefing deadlines for motions in limine.

Regarding Sekona’s requests for counsel, the United States Constitution does not require 

appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil 

cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an 

indigent party to commence, prosecute, or defend a civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 

(“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”); see also 

United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review 

for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (citations omitted). However, motions to appoint 

counsel in civil cases are granted only in “exceptional circumstances.” McQuade, 579 F.2d at 

1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if exceptional circumstances warrant 

appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of indigence, the likelihood of success 

on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his or her claims pro se considering the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 

Cir. 1997), partially overruled on other grounds, 154 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998).

Sekona has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v. 

Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) (citation omitted). A plaintiff’s 

limited English proficiency “does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.” Garces v. 

Degadeo, No. 1:06-cv-01038-LJO-SMS PC, 2007 WL 1521078, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2007). 

As the court noted in its previous order denying counsel, Sekona has capably filed multiple 

pleadings. See Doc. 70 at 2. Sekona’s pleadings include a complaint that survived screening; 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 134 Filed 07/12/24 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

various motions and related pleadings, including a response to a motion for summary judgment; 

objections to findings and recommendations; and a pretrial statement. See docket. Sekona has 

also participated in multiple settlement conferences and has successfully prosecuted this case 

through the pretrial stages. Id.

“A plaintiff’s inability to communicate in English may be considered in determining 

whether exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel.” Sekona v. Lizarraga, No. 

2:17-cv-0346-KJM-EFB P, 2018 WL 11304911 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2018) (citations 

omitted). However, when a “prisoner has some ability to communicate in English, courts have 

generally declined to appoint counsel on the basis of limited English.” Id. (citations omitted). 

While English is not Sekona’s primary language, he has successfully demonstrated his ability to 

communicate in English during the pendency of this litigation, including at the pretrial conference 

held on June 17, 2024. Accordingly, Sekona has not shown exceptional circumstances to warrant 

appointment of counsel.

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 131) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s 

request in Doc. 130 for appointment of counsel is also denied.

2. The court will construe plaintiff’s motion for request to file a motion in limine

(Doc. 130) as a motion in limine and will consider it following the briefing schedule 

previously set for motions in limine. Plaintiff is reminded that his deadline to file 

motions in limine is July 29, 2024.

3. Plaintiff’s motions at Doc. 132 and Doc. 133 are stricken as duplicative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 134 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 3