Thornton v. Grissom et al

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING 60 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/6/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
SIMON THORNTON,

CASE No. 1:16-cv-00498-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 60)

D. GRISSOM, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s sixth motion (ECF No. 60) for appointment of
counsel. (See ECF Nos. 8, 14, 17, 21, 32.)
As Plaintiff has previously been informed, he does not have a constitutional right
to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.
1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances the court may
request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113
F.3d at 1525.

1

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court

2

will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In

3

determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate

4

both the likelihood of success of the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate

5

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. (internal

6

quotation marks and citations omitted).

7

In the present case, the Court again finds no exceptional circumstances. Even if it

8

is assumed, as Plaintiff again claims, that he is not well versed in the law and that he has

9

made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not

10

exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, the Court

11

cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. And, based

12

on a review of the record in this case, even though the issues are complex, the court

13

does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

14

In this motion Plaintiff again asserts mental incompetence and supports his

15

motion with recent medical records. However, the records do not indicate that Plaintiff

16

lacks the writing ability and mental cognition to explain his claims. They indicate that

17

Plaintiff has been “doing well for the last two years” (ECF No. 60 at 4), that his thoughts

18

are “logical, linear” and “clear” (Id. at 6), and that he has been responding positively to

19

medication. (Id. at 9.) Although Plaintiff has suffered from mental health challenges, it

20

appears they are reasonably controlled with medication and treatment. Moreover, he has

21

demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claims. See

22

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

23

Accordingly Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2018

/s/

27

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3