Trujillo v. Munoz

Filing 81

ORDER Denying 80 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/24/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
MUNOZ and ALVAREZ,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00976-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 80)

15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No.

21

80). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford to hire a lawyer; because

22

his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because the issues in this case are

23

complex; because a trial will likely involve conflicting testimony, and a lawyer would be able to

24

assist Plaintiff in the presentation of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses; and because,

25

despite repeated attempts to retain a lawyer, Plaintiff has been unable to find representation.1

26

Plaintiff also states that he “has never before been a party to a civil legal proceeding.” (ECF No. 80, p. 1).
This is not true. In fact, it appears that Plaintiff has filed over twenty-five civil actions in the Eastern District of
California alone. Plaintiff is advised that misrepresenting facts to the Court may lead to sanctions, up to and
including the dismissal of his case.

27
28

1

1

1

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.

2

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952

3

(9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

5

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request

6

the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

7

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

8

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

9

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of

10

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

11

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

12

The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. The Court has

13

reviewed the record in this case, and at this time the Court is unable to make a determination that

14

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can

15

adequately articulate his claims.

16
17
18
19

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.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 24, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2