Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01234-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ISAAC MONGIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01234-JLT-EPG

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(ECF No. 9).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 10). 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE 

TO CORRECT DOCKET

Plaintiff Isaac Mongia, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action 

by filing a complaint on August 18, 2023. (ECF No. 1). On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 7). On November 11, 2023, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint “within 90 days of this 

order.” (ECF No. 8). On March 1, 2024, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the 

requisite deadline, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show why his case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 9). The 

Case 1:23-cv-01234-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/03/24 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

Court directed Plaintiff to “[f]ile a written response why this action should not be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order” or, alternatively “[f]ile 

his First Amended Complaint” within thirty days. (Id. at 2). 

On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. (ECF No. 

10). Plaintiff states he has made some progress on his FAC but that the case Plaintiff has relied on 

as an example for his own FAC is not as helpful as he initially thought. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff states 

that it has been difficult to find cases that address the claims he intends to allege, i.e., “(1) false 

arrest; (2) potential deprivation of equal protection (in child abuse reporting/assault & battery); 

(3) retaliation (4) etc.” (Id.) For that reason, Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint him counsel. 

(Id.) Plaintiff also requests additional time to file his amended complaint. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff 

states that he has attached a copy of his draft FAC as an exhibit to show the Court “what [he] has 

done so far and how much more work still needs to be done before [he] can file [his] First 

Amended Complaint.”1(Id. at 2-3).

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for the 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).

It is too early in the case to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits such 

that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The Court has not yet screened 

1 Plaintiff’s response does not include an attached exhibit. However, it appears that Plaintiff’s 

exhibit was docketed as Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on March 29, 2024. (ECF No. 9).

Case 1:23-cv-01234-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/03/24 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

Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants have not yet been served, and discovery has not yet begun in 

this case. Moreover, it appears that the legal issues involved are not extremely complex and that 

Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for counsel without prejudice. 

Plaintiff can file another request for counsel at a later date. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff 

an additional forty-five (45) days to file his First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file his amended complaint by the Court’s deadline may result in dismissal of this 

action. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s March 1, 2024 order to show cause (ECF No. 9) is DISCHARGED.

2. Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint within forty-five (45) days of this order.

3. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. 

4. Further, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to correct the docket to note Plaintiff’s 

March 29, 2024 filing (ECF No. 9) as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 10). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01234-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 3