Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-3/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

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 29)

Plaintiff Luis Manuel Garces (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel along with a 

supporting declaration and memorandum of points and authorities. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff 

requests appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; the issues involved in the 

case are complex; Plaintiff is in segregated housing and has limited access to the law library; he 

has been unable to find an attorney to help him on his own; and Plaintiff has limited knowledge 

of the law and is illiterate. (Id.).

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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 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 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 30 Filed 03/07/22 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

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.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (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.

1

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: March 7, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 As to Plaintiff’s assertion that he has limited law library access, the Court notes that the defendants have not yet 

appeared in the case and there are no pending deadlines at this time. However, if Plaintiff needs an extension of time 

in the future based on his limited ability to access the law library, he may file an appropriate request with the Court as 

soon as the need for the extension becomes apparent. Any such request should describe Plaintiff’s efforts to access 

the law library and the prison’s response, if any. 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 30 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 2