Jackson v. Mendenhall
Filing
45
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of Counsel 39 40 42 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/31/16. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,
11
12
13
14
Case No. 1:13-cv-01679-SAB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Plaintiff,
v.
D. MENDENHALL,
(ECF Nos. 39, 40, 42)
Defendant.
15
16
Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
17
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant
18
Correctional Officer (CO) Mendenhall used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment
19
when he grabbed the right handle of Plaintiff’s wheelchair, and “snatched backwards with such
20
intense force, Plaintiff fell forward at which time Plaintiff grabed [sic] the frame of his wheelchair
21
to keep from falling onto the concrete ground.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 17.) Plaintiff alleges that his
22
torso went from a bent forward position to an upright position so quickly that he suffered injury.
23
(Id.) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, and this
24
matter is scheduled for a jury trial on February 14, 2017.
25
On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 39.)
26
On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel for his settlement
27
conference. (ECF No. 40.) On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a duplicate copy of his motion for
28
appointment of counsel for his settlement conference. (ECF No. 42.)
1
1
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
2
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to
3
represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
4
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in
5
certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
6
pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.
7
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
8
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
9
“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success of
10
the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
11
complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In determining whether
12
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from severe depression, anxiety, and PTSD, for which
13
he is prescribed powerful psychotropic medications that affect his cognitive thinking. (ECF No.
14
39 at ¶ 4.) He states that he has been a mental health patient since 1989 and has been a patient in
15
the mental health program at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)
16
since he entered CDCR in 1996. (ECF No. 39 at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff further states that he has been a
17
participant in the enhanced out-patient program. (ECF No. 39 at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff argues that he
18
should be appointed counsel because his mental illness and the “powerful psychotropic
19
medication” make it impossible for him to concentrate and affect his ability to understand,
20
prepare, and articulate his claims, defenses, and damages. (ECF No. 39 at ¶ 9; ECF No. 40 at ¶ 2.)
21
Plaintiff attaches a letter from Barbara Bachmeier, Psy. D. (ECF No. 40 at 4.) Plaintiff also
22
attaches a copy of his statewide psychotropic medication consent form. (ECF NO. 39 at 11-12.)
23
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. This
24
court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Generally, a plaintiff that shows at least some
25
ability to articulate his claims is not entitled to appointment of counsel, regardless of whether he
26
has mental and physical health problems or is incarcerated. See, e.g., Warren v. Harrison, 244 Fed.
27
Appx. 831, 832 (9th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (holding that an inmate plaintiff who had alleged
28
mental illness did not qualify for appointment of counsel because he competently presented his
2
1
claims and attached three pertinent exhibits); Miller v. McDaniel, 124 Fed. Appx. 488, 490 (9th
2
Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (holding that an inmate plaintiff with mental health problems was not
3
entitled to appointment of counsel because he demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims pro
4
se).
5
Here, based on a review of the record in this case, the court does not find that Plaintiff
6
cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id. Although Plaintiff has mental health issues, he has
7
demonstrated the capability to adequately articulate his claims, positions, and arguments,
8
particularly given that this action involves an excessive force claim that is not complex. The
9
Court notes that Plaintiff participated in a settlement conference in this action before Magistrate
10
Judge Kendall J. Newman on October 27, 2016, wherein Plaintiff was adequately able to discuss
11
settlement and articulate his claims. (ECF No. 44.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff represented
12
himself during a two day trial in another civil rights action in this Court before Magistrate Judge
13
Barbara A. McAuliffe. See Jackson v. Mendez, 1:11-cv-00080-BAM, ECF No. 205 (E.D. Cal.
14
Dec. 1, 2015).
15
proceedings in this action do not establish that he is incompetent or otherwise require the
16
appointment of counsel on the basis of Plaintiff’s mental health.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel (ECF Nos.
17
18
Furthermore, the Court finds that the evidence Plaintiff submitted and the
39, 40, 42) are HEREBY DENIED without prejudice.
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 31, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?