1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH JEROME WRIGHT, No. 1:24-cv-01029 JLT GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SUBPOENA FORMS & 13 v. FOR SUBPOENA 14 IDALBERTO ZALDIVAR-GALVES, (ECF Nos. 37, 42) 15 Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 16 (ECF No. 39) 17

18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 19 rights action seeking relief under

. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 Before this Court are Plaintiff’s request for subpoena forms and his request for subpoena 22 (ECF Nos. 37, 42), and his motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 39).1 For the reasons 23 stated below, all three motions will be denied. 24 I. REQUESTS FOR SUBPOENA FORMS & SUBPOENA 25

1 Plaintiff has also filed two motions in limine in preparation for trial. See ECF Nos. 40, 41. The 26 Court notes that they have been filed prematurely as it has yet to be determined whether this case 27 will proceed past the dispositive motion phase of the proceedings. In addition, because motions in limine are typically addressed by the District Judge who presides over the trial, should there be 28 one, the Undersigned does not address these two motions herein. 1 A. Plaintiff’s Two Requests 2 Plaintiff has filed two requests, one for subpoena forms and the other to grant his request 3 to subpoena two medical staffers. See ECF Nos. 37, 42 respectively. In support of his first 4 request, docketed on September 5, 2025, Plaintiff states that his pretrial motions are due by 5 October 16, 2025. See ECF No. 37. As a result, he asks for the forms as well as “a list of 6 standard pre-trial motions” and “any information that may assist me” He also requests a 7 “secondary fee waiver for subpoenas.”

8 In Plaintiff’s second request, docketed September 22, 2025, he asks the Court to permit 9 him to subpoena two medical staffers who are currently employed by the California Substance 10 Abuse Treatment Facility. ECF No. 42 at 1. Plaintiff contends that both individuals are aware of 11 his injuries, and they are willing to be subpoenaed for trial.

12 B. Discussion 13 Both Plaintiff’s requests, as well as the request in the first motion which asks the Court to 14 waive his subpoena fees, must be denied as prematurely filed. Moreover, the due date for 15 dispositive / pretrial motions, which is October 16, 2025 (see ECF No. 34 at 3) has not yet 16 arrived, nor has this case been set for trial. Therefore, to provide Plaintiff’ with subpoena forms 17 or, permit him to subpoena witnesses at this point would be premature. 18 Plaintiff is also advised that typically the Court does not waive subpoena fees for 19 prisoners who are proceeding in forma pauperis with their case. For these reasons, both motions 20 will be denied. 21 II. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 22 A. Plaintiff’s Motion 23 In support of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states, in part, 24 that he cannot afford counsel; that this case is complex involving medical legal issues; that he is 25 financially poor. ECF No. 39 at 1,2. Plaintiff also argues that the appointment of counsel would 26 save the Court time and resources with at least the appointment of co-counsel; that the complex 27 issues in this case will require nurses, primary care provider-practitioner and orthopedic surgeon 28 testimony; and that the law library is only open two days a week hindering research and copying 1 material.

2 B. Applicable Law 3 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 4 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

(1989). In exceptional 5 circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28

(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer,

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 7 Housewright,

(9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional 8 circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as 9 well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 10 legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not 11 abuse discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 12 circumstances is on the plaintiff.

Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 13 legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 14 warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 15 C. Discussion 16 Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel must be denied. Plaintiff has 17 successfully litigated this matter up to the dispositive motion phase. This fact establishes that 18 Plaintiff may have success with his case on its merits. It also shows that Plaintiff has the ability 19 to articulate his claims on his own despite the complexity of the legal issues that are involved in 20 it. 21 For these reasons, having considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds that 22 Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 23 appointment of counsel at this time. Therefore, the motion will be denied. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s two requests regarding subpoenas (ECF Nos. 37, 42) are DENIED as 26 having been PREMATURELY FILED, and 27 & 2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 39) is denied without 28 prejudice. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

3 Dated: September 24, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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