1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 RICARDO SALVADOR GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00386-KES-BAM (PC) 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 8 v. (ECF No. 14) 9 CHAVEZ, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff Ricardo Salvador Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 13 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. On November 13, 14 2025, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s 15 first amended complaint against Defendant I. Chavez for excessive force in violation of the 16 Eighth Amendment for the punch when Plaintiff was first put in the cage as Plaintiff was trying to 17 sit down, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state 18 claims upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 13.) Those findings and recommendations 19 are pending before the assigned District Judge. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed 21 December 1, 2025. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, his 22 imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate, the issues involved in this case are complex 23 and will require significant research and investigation, Plaintiff has limited access to the law 24 library and limited knowledge of the law, and a trial in this case will likely involve conflicting 25 testimony and counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine 26 witnesses. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 28 this action, Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 1 grounds,

, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 2 represent plaintiff pursuant to

(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 3 of Iowa,

(1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 4 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand,

1525. 6 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 7 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 8 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 9 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 10 complexity of the legal issues involved.”

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 11 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 12 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 13 would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 14 almost daily by prisoners who must also conduct legal research with limited access to a law 15 library and without the assistance of counsel. 16 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 17 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and 18 found to state a cognizable claim, this does not mean that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed 19 on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 20 Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. 21 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 14), is HEREBY 22 DENIED, without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24

25 Dated: December 3, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

27 28