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)

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-