Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947-13/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

DAVID JOSEPH MADRID,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and M. LOPEZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

REQUESTING DISCOVERY, APPOINTMENT 

OF PRO BONO COUNSEL, AND AN ORDER 

DIRECTING THAT PLAINTIFF BE GIVEN 

ACCESS TO THE LAW LIBRARY/LEGAL 

RESOURCES

(ECF Nos. 49 & 50)

David Madrid (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions requesting discovery, appointment of pro 

bono counsel, and an order directing that he be given access to the law library/legal resources. 

(ECF Nos. 49 & 50).

All of Plaintiff’s requests will be denied. As to Plaintiff’s request for discovery, it will be 

denied because there is no need to file a motion for discovery requests. If Plaintiff is seeking 

discovery from Defendants, he should serve his discovery requests on defense counsel. If 

Plaintiff is seeking documents from a third party, he should file a motion for a third party 

subpoena.1

1 The Court notes that, at this time, discovery is limited to the issue of exhaustion of administrative 

remedies.

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 03/04/20 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

As to Plaintiff’s request for an order directing that he be given access to the law 

library/legal resources, it will be denied without prejudice.2 Plaintiff attaches evidence that he 

requested legal forms and access to the law library. However, Plaintiff did not attach any 

responses to his requests, or allege what the responses were. He also does not detail how much 

access, if any, he has to the law library, or what legal resources he is being denied access to.

Finally, as to Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono 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1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the 

Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 

Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 

(1989). However, 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. 

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 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has 

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can 

adequately articulate his claims.

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of 

pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is DENIED;

2

In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that Los Angeles County Jail is not honoring this Court’s “order for legal 

assistance.” (ECF No. 50, p. 1). However, the Court has not issued an order directing Los Angeles County Jail to 

provide Plaintiff with legal assistance.

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 03/04/20 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 motion for an order directing that he be given access to the law 

library/legal resources is DENIED without prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 65 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3