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)

Download PDF
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?