Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

E.D. California

Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

DecidedDecember 1, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02369

StatusUnknown

This text of Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF BAOLIANG ZHANG, No. 2:24-cv-02369-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Jeff Baoliang Zhang initiated this action with a complaint filed on August 30, 19 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. On March 13, 2025, the Court issued an order 20 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 4.) On April 10, 2025, plaintiff 21 filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) On April 30, 2025, the Court issued findings and 22 recommendations to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim without leave to 23 amend. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has filed three motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 8-10), which 24 are pending before the Court. 25 It is “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil 26 cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Under “exceptional 27 circumstances,” a court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(e)(1). Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). When determining whether 1 | “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court considers both “the likelihood of success on the merits 2 || as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate [the] claims pro se in light of the complexity of 3 || the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation omitted). 4 The court has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. Having 5 || considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds plaintiff does not meet the burden of 6 || demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time, 7 || including consideration that findings and recommendations to dismiss this case are currently 8 || pending (see ECF No. 6). Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 8-10) 9 | are DENIED. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 Plaintiff Jeff Baoliang Zhang’s motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 8-10) are DENIED. 12 | Dated: November 26, 2025 / aa / a Ly a

14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1S 5, zhan.2369.24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF BAOLIANG ZHANG, No. 2:24-cv-02369-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Jeff Baoliang Zhang initiated this action with a complaint filed on August 30, 19 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. On March 13, 2025, the Court issued an order 20 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 4.) On April 10, 2025, plaintiff 21 filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) On April 30, 2025, the Court issued findings and 22 recommendations to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim without leave to 23 amend. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has filed three motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 8-10), which 24 are pending before the Court. 25 It is “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil 26 cases.” United States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Under “exceptional 27 circumstances,” a court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(e)(1). Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). When determining whether 1 | “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court considers both “the likelihood of success on the merits 2 || as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate [the] claims pro se in light of the complexity of 3 || the legal issues involved.” Id. (citation omitted). 4 The court has extremely limited resources to appoint attorneys in civil cases. Having 5 || considered the factors under Palmer, the Court finds plaintiff does not meet the burden of 6 || demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time, 7 || including consideration that findings and recommendations to dismiss this case are currently 8 || pending (see ECF No. 6). Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 8-10) 9 | are DENIED. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 Plaintiff Jeff Baoliang Zhang’s motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 8-10) are DENIED. 12 | Dated: November 26, 2025 / aa / a Ly a

14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1S 5, zhan.2369.24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeff-baoliang-zhang-v-california-department-of-corrections-and-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack