Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01217/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01217-7/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

GUSTAVO TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BURKETT, et al.,

Defendants.

1:14-cv-01217-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 31)

Plaintiff Gustavo Torres (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 4, 2014. 

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF 

No. 31.) He argues that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate his case, that the 

issues in his case are complex and require research and investigation, and that he has limited 

access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law. (Id. at 1.) He further contends that his 

English is not very good, his reading and writing level is a 3.6, and that the evidence and 

witnesses at any trial in his case will be better presented by an attorney. (Id.) Finally, he states 

that he has tried to find an attorney, but for monetary reasons he has not been successful. (Id. at 1-

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), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 

Case 1:14-cv-01217-DAD-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/26/15 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

represent him 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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, the 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. (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 

if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The limitations of 

incarceration imposed upon a party are generally not sufficient grounds to make the 

circumstances of an action exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases brought by 

prisoners in similar circumstances almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the 

Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a 

review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate 

his claims. Id. Despite Plaintiff’s contention that his reading, writing, and English are not very 

good, the Court has found his filings thus far to be adequately articulated and understandable.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01217-DAD-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2