Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al
ORDER DENYING without prejudice Plaintiff's 69 Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 03/21/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ,
DR. SCHARFFENBERG, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
(ECF NO. 69)
Mario Gonzalez (“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 March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 69).
According to Plaintiff, he needs counsel appointed because he cannot afford counsel, the
issues in this case are complex, he has very limited access to the law library, he has no access to
the computers in the law library, he has no legal education, and he has medical issues (Plaintiff is
legally paralyzed on the left side of his body, is taking heavy pain medication, and will very soon
be undergoing surgery).
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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952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, 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.
Aexceptional 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
In determining whether
complexity of the legal issues involved.@ Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court will not order appointment of pro bono counsel at this time. At this early stage in
the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the
merits. There is a pending motion to dismiss the case, and while the Court has recommended that the
case proceed against some defendants (ECF No. 67), the District Court has not issued its ruling on the
findings and recommendations. Moreover, based on the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff
can adequately articulate his claims and respond to court orders.
Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings. Additionally, the Court notes that if Plaintiff needs
any deadlines to be extended, he is free to ask the Court to extend those deadlines.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 21, 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?