(PC) Harris v. Lopez, et al.

1
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01295-JLT-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF
AN EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO THE
COURT’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 15).
Plaintiff Christopher Harris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 1, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and
concluded that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 13). After Plaintiff
failed to respond to the screening order, the Court issued findings and recommendations on
December 9, 2025, recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure
to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (ECF No. 14).
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel and
request for an extension of time to respond to the findings and recommendations until counsel
is appointed. (ECF No. 15). In support, Plaintiff states that he is in administrative segregation
and does not have access to the law library or a legal advisor and he needs assistance to respond
to the findings and recommendations. He states that he will be in administrative segregation
Case 1:24-cv-01295-JLT-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
until May 2026.
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Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d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 (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 of
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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court will not order appointment of counsel. The Court has reviewed the record in
this case and is unable to conclude that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims;
notably, the findings and recommendations explain in detail why Plaintiff is unable to state a
claim for First Amendment retaliation or for violation of his due process rights. (ECF No. 14).
Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff can adequately articulate why he is attempting to bring a
claim. Moreover, the Court has provided him the relevant legal standards to review.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is denied.
(ECF No. 15). However, the Court grants Plaintiff an extension to February 9, 2026, to respond
to the findings and recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01295-JLT-EPG Document 16 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2