Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01406/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01406-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Raymond Thomas Garcia is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on September 17, 2015, along with a motion for the 

appointment of counsel, motion for reconsideration, motion for demand for trial by jury, and motion 

for order compelling discovery. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6.) The Court will address each motion separately.

I.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Appointment of 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), and the court cannot require any 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 

RAYMOND THOMAS GARCIA, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-01406-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING 

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE JURY TRIAL, AND 

DENYING MOTION TO OPEN DISCOVERY

[ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6]

Case 1:15-cv-01406-SAB Document 9 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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, the 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 test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s 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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances common to most 

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

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, 

the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and based on a cursory review of the complaint, the 

Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel will be DENIED without prejudice. 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff indicates that he will seek reconsideration “in favor of the action against the 

Defendant and other(s) by Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” The Court cannot decipher the 

nature of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, as the Court has not yet issued any rulings in this 

matter. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of prior rulings in another case, Plaintiff 

cannot seek reconsideration by way of the instant/new action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

III. Motion for Jury Trial

Plaintiff requests a jury trial. The Court will accept this request as a demand for jury trial 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. To the extent that Plaintiff’s request is a demand for 

immediate trial, it is DENIED. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01406-SAB Document 9 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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

IV. Motion to Open Discovery

Plaintiff has requested a court order immediately opening discovery. Plaintiff is advised to 

reach the First Informational Order issued in this action on September 18, 2015. (ECF No. 7.) The 

First Informational order explains that the Court will issue an order opening discovery and setting the 

deadlines for completion of discovery if and when an answer is filed by Defendants. However, the 

Court must first screen Plaintiff’s complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If the Court makes a finding that 

the complaint states cognizable claims for relief under federal law against one or more of the named 

Defendants, the next step is for Defendants to be served with process and make an appearance in the 

action. If and when Defendants file an answer, the Court will issue a scheduling order opening 

discovery. The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint which will be done in due course. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s demand for an immediate jury trial is DENIED; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion to open discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:15-cv-01406-SAB Document 9 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 3