Beiruti v. Corrections Corporation of America and its Officers et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/20/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISSA SANAD BEIRUTI, 12 1:09-cv-01041-LJO-JLT (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 vs. 14 CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND ITS OFFICERS, et al., 15 (Doc. 43) Defendants. 16 ________________________________/ 17 On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of 18 counsel. Plaintiff’s asserts that the appointment of counsel is necessary because he suffers from 19 mental illness and severe depression and attaches numerous documents which reflect on-going 20 medical treatment for his illness. (Doc. 43.) 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to 23 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 24 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 25 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 26 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 27 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 28 -1- 1 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 2 “exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 3 of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 4 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even 6 if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations 7 which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with 8 similar cases almost daily. 9 As to Plaintiff’s contentions regarding his mental condition, he has attached many 10 documents, including those related to an event occurring in 2006 and subsequent mental health 11 treatment at that time, medications that he is currently prescribed as well as current mental health 12 records. (Doc. 43 at 3-41) He does not provide any evidence from any medical provider that his 13 current mental state interferes with his ability to prosecute this action. Indeed, on July 22, 2011, 14 Plaintiff reported to mental health staff that he “feels better now that he is back on Seroquel” and 15 reported that his “mood is much improved,” he “denied] any perceptual disturbances or paranoia” 16 and reported that his “mood is stable.” Id. at 18. Again, on July 27, 2011, he reported having 17 “clear thinking” that he felt “better,” he “reported] no acute issues” and “denied] mood 18 problems.” Id. at 19. On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff reported that he was “doing just fine.” Id. at 19 20. On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff reported that he was “feeling much better” though he reported 20 feeling paranoid around noon time. Id. at 21. On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff reported that he 21 “feels] good on medication.” Id. at 22. From this evidence, the Court must conclude that, 22 though Plaintiff has a diagnosed mental health condition, he is able to function quite well on his 23 medication. 24 Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims. Id. In fact, 25 both the instant motion as well as documents filed in support of his opposition to Defendant’s 26 motion to dismiss (Docs. 43 and 26), indicate that Plaintiff’s illness has not prevented his 27 continuing ability to litigate the issues involved in this case. 28 -2- 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 20, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?