(PC) Janoiko v. Marchak et al

1
2
3
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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD JANOIKO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCHAK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00652-CDB (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
REQUEST TO ADD PERSONS AND
ENTITIES TO THIS CLAIM, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 26)
Plaintiff Richard Janoiko (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against
Defendants Marchak, Galarza, and Nikzad (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel for an ADA
inmate and request on how to add persons and entities to this claim, filed December 15, 2025.
(ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff states that he is mobility disabled due to his tardive dyskinesia (“TD”)
situation which affects his head and hand movement and his entire being. He is listed by CDCR
as an ADA mobility/vision impaired person. His vision is due to him having only one eye. The
person aiding Plaintiff with these legal papers is not well versed in civil matters and fears he may
cause more harm than help. There are several persons who Plaintiff believes should and do have
liability in Plaintiff’s condition and should be added to this civil claim, but Plaintiff is unsure how

1
2
3
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
2
to bring this in or who would be the proper person to list for certain official positions. Plaintiff
lists certain Wardens, Chief Medical Officers, and Directors of CDCR Institutions, as well as
certain pharmaceutical companies. Plaintiff requests appointment of an attorney, and if the Court
denies his motion, requests that the Court point him towards what technical aspects he needs to
follow to add the above-listed persons. (Id.)
Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion, and the deadline to do so has
expired. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
Plaintiff is informed that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in
this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other
grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist.
of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (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. In determining whether
“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional
circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved,
would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed
almost daily by prisoners suffering from serious mental and physical disabilities who must also
conduct legal research, obtain discovery, and litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel
and with limited access to the law library.
Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that
Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and
found to state cognizable claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed

1
2
3
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
3
on the merits. Finally, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that
Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
With respect to Plaintiff’s request for guidance as to how to add defendants to this action,
Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot provide him with legal advice. However, Plaintiff is
informed that generally the addition of new parties to an action requires the filing of an amended
complaint, which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff is reminded that the deadline for
amending the pleadings was November 11, 2025. (ECF No. 24.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and request to add persons and
entities to this claim, (ECF No. 26), is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE