Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 198

ORDER Denying 197 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/6/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 197)

17

I.

Background

18

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, initiated this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 28, 2009. On January 10, 2017, the undersigned screened

20

Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint, filed on May 2, 2016, and recommended that this case proceed on

21

Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment against Defendants Wu, McGuiness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and Jimenez. Those findings

23

and recommendations are before the District Judge for further consideration.

24

On July 26, 2013, the Court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and substituted

25

Plaintiff in pro se. (ECF No. 64.) On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for the

26

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 73.) On August 20, 2013, the Court denied the renewed request

27

for appointment of counsel, finding that the matter did not present exceptional circumstances and that

28

Plaintiff had been able to articulate his position in various filings. (ECF No. 74.)
1

1

On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion requesting the appointment of counsel.

2

(ECF No. 114.) On March 24, 2014, the Court denied the renewed request for appointment of

3

counsel, again finding that the matter did not present exceptional circumstances and that Plaintiff had

4

been able to articulate his position in various filings. (ECF No. 128.)

5
6

On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting the appointment of counsel.
(ECF No. 197.)

7

II.

8

As Plaintiff was previously informed, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed

9

Legal Standard

counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), reversed in part on

10

other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to

11

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the

12

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain

13

exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

14

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

15

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek

16

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

17

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the

18

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

19

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

20

III.

21

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in conducting research and

22

performing other unspecified legal matters. In support of his request, Plaintiff contends that this is a

23

complicated case, that he has been found to have cognizable federal claims, and that due to his visual

24

limitations he is unable to proceed on his own.

25

Discussion

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel, but again

26

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. As previously indicated, this Court is faced with

27

similar cases involving claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs filed by prisoners

28

proceeding in forma pauperis and suffering various medical conditions almost daily. These prisoners
2

1

also must conduct legal research and prosecute medical claims without the assistance of counsel.

2

Plaintiff has provided no new considerations or changed circumstances indicating that he is unable to

3

proceed in this matter without the assistance of counsel.

4

Plaintiff’s assertions regarding the limitations imposed by his medical conditions also have

5

been taken into consideration. Although Plaintiff believes that he has been unable to articulate the

6

merits of his case, the record indicates that Plaintiff has submitted documents to the Court for

7

consideration without the assistance of counsel or another inmate. (ECF Nos. 30, 59, 69, 70, 71, 73,

8

76, 120, 181, 190, 191, and 197.) These submissions demonstrate that Plaintiff is able to prepare and

9

file documents that clearly set forth his contentions without any assistance. Thus, based on the record

10
11

in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims.
Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that

12

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff notes that this Court has found he stated

13

cognizable federal claims of deliberate indifference, (ECF No. 197, p. 3), but this is not equivalent to a

14

determination that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Although the Court has determined Plaintiff

15

has stated some claims which may proceed in litigation, it has not determined that those claim have a

16

likelihood of being ultimately successful.

17

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY

18

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff again is reminded that, as necessary and appropriate, he may

19

seek extensions of time for relevant case deadlines. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 6, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3