Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01536-0/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

EDWARD TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAYSON QUICK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 

COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 3)

Edward Torres (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims. 

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 

(ECF No. 3). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford counsel; because 

his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because he has limited formal education 

and no knowledge of the law; because the issues involved in this case are complex and will 

require obtaining documents and video footage from Defendants, as well as significant research 

and investigation; because his institution of confinement has an inadequate legal research 

program; because a trial in this case will likely involve sharply conflicting testimony and counsel 

would better enable him to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses; and because his claims 

have legal merit.

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 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

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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 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 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, while Plaintiff alleges that he has 

received assistance, 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro 

bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01536-KES-EPG Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 2