Caruso v. Johnson et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 46 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/08/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:15-cv-00780-EPG (PC)
OFFICER G. SOLORIO, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
(ECF NO. 46)
Gina Caruso (“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 December 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
motion for appointment of pro bono counsel.1 (ECF No. 46).
According to Plaintiff, she needs counsel appointed because she has never filed a lawsuit
before, because she has a very limited education, because she is living in acute pain, because she
has limited movement in her neck, because she needs an attorney to conduct the deposition of
Correctional Officer Bates, 2 and because she needs an attorney to gain access to certain
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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952
Plaintiff also formally requests “that Defendants have to pay [her] attorney fees at the end of this case.”
However, as Plaintiff does not currently have an attorney, and as the Court is denying this motion, the Court will not
address this issue at this time.
The Court notes that Plaintiff does not need an attorney to conduct the deposition. Plaintiff should refer to
the scheduling order for information on how to request a deposition. (ECF No. 43, p. 3).
Plaintiff does not need an attorney to get documents relevant to this case. Plaintiff should review the
scheduling order (ECF No. 43) for the discovery procedures in this case.
(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, 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.
“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
In determining whether
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 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 still unable to make a determination that
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. Moreover, based on the record in this case, it
appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate her claims and respond to Court orders.
Plaintiff is advised that she is not precluded from renewing her motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 8, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?