Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01952/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01952-15/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANNY R. GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C/O HEATH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1952 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action, has filed a ninth request for appointment of counsel together with a request to re-open 

discovery. For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff’s requests are denied. 

 The court filed findings and recommendations in this case on August 17, 2016, which 

remain pending before the district judge, and which recommend dismissal of all defendants in this 

action with the exception of Mendoza due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. See ECF No. 68. 

 By order filed September 8, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s seventh and eighth requests 

for appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 74. Relying on the legal standards for assessing 

whether “exceptional circumstances” warranted such appointment,1 the court found in pertinent 

 

1

 As this court has noted in assessing each of plaintiff’s prior requests for appointment of 

counsel, district courts lack authority to require attorneys to represent indigent prisoners in civil 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 4
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

part, id. at 2: 

The court again concludes that plaintiff has failed to meet his 

burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s continuing incarceration, 

limited understanding of the law, and limited access to the prison 

law library are circumstances common to most prisoners. 

Moreover, in light of the pending findings and recommendations, 

which were based on an exhaustive review of the record, 

appointment of counsel would have a negligible impact on the 

direction and merits of this case. 

 Plaintiff now contends that the exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of 

counsel include the necessity to re-open discovery to prove that all named defendants conspired 

to retaliate against plaintiff, and thus demonstrate that plaintiff has a strong likelihood of success 

on the merits of his claims. Plaintiff also contends that this court’s pending recommendation 

demonstrates that plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. Plaintiff again contends that he has limited access to the prison law library, 

due to long wait lines for general library and computer use; outdated resources; and retaliatory 

conduct by prison guards preventing plaintiff’s access to the library. Plaintiff asserts that the lack 

of adequate legal resources and assistance from paralegals or other persons trained in the law 

violates his Sixth Amendment right to meaningfully access the courts, as required by Bounds v. 

Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). 

 As the undersigned previously stated, the record on administrative exhaustion presented to 

this court appeared to be exhaustive. Plaintiff was reminded that additional discovery or legal 

research would not impact the court’s assessments “concerning the timing, content and processing 

of his administrative grievances, for which he does not need the prison library or computers.” 

 

rights cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, 

this court may, in exceptional circumstances, request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 

circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his 

claims as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on plaintiff. Circumstances common 

to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of voluntary counsel. Id. 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 4
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

ECF No. 74 at 3-4. Plaintiff has identified no additional evidence that may be pertinent to the 

court’s assessment on administrative exhaustion. Moreover, this court stated that “[f]ollowing the 

district judge’s decision on the undersigned’s findings and recommendations, this court will 

consider reopening discovery on the merits of plaintiff’s claims.” Id. at 3 (citing a previous 

similar statement at ECF No. 66 at 2-3). 

 In support of his Bounds argument, plaintiff asserts that “he has been making so many 

mistakes that he now has actual injury to his case because of so many barriers including not being 

to articulate.” ECF No. 76 at 3. 

Prisoners’ constitutional right of access to the courts “requires prison authorities to assist 

inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with 

adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds, 430 U.S. 

at 828. In order to state a denial of access claim under the First Amendment, a prisoner must 

show that he suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the defendants’ actions by explaining how 

the challenged official acts or omissions hindered plaintiff’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal 

claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-55 (1996). Actual injury may be shown if the alleged 

shortcomings “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim,” such as having his complaint 

dismissed for “for failure to satisfy some technical requirement” or if he “suffered arguably 

actionable harm that he wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of 

the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint.” Id. at 351. 

The court finds that plaintiff’s alleged “actual injury” is too vague to support a claim 

under Bounds – plaintiff has been an articulate and capable litigant in this action who, like all 

prisoners, is subject to the requirements of administrative exhaustion before he can proceed with 

his civil rights claims in this court. Additionally, plaintiff will be accorded the opportunity to 

conduct further discovery on the substance of his claims against defendant Mendoza. 

 For these reasons, the court again concludes that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of 

demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Additionally, discovery should not be re-opened in this case until such time that the district judge 

rules on the pending findings and recommendations. 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion “requesting appointment 

of counsel and to re-open discovery to enter supplemental argument,” ECF No. 76, is denied 

without prejudice. 

DATED: September 26, 2016 

 

Case 2:13-cv-01952-JAM-AC Document 77 Filed 09/27/16 Page 4 of 4