Laneley v. Garcia et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING 96 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 08/25/2022. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY LANGLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
E. GARCIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01299-BAK (HBK)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. No. 96)

Plaintiff Randy Langley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19
20

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants E. Garcia and G. Cook, asserting

21

excessive force claims arising under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

22

Constitution, occurring while Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee.

23

I.

DISCUSSION

24

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 96.) Plaintiff

25

contends prescribed medications “buprenorphine and naloxone (suboxone, zubsolu)” cause side effects

26

that leave him “impaired throughout the day” and affect his “day to day functions.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff

27

declares he is “no longer able to litigation [his] case properly” as a result. (Id.)

28

//
1

1

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions. Rand v.

2

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc,

3

154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Additionally, the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party

4

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However,

5

in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

6

section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

7

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court

8

will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether “exceptional

9

circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the

10

ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

11

involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks & citations omitted).

12

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances have been

13

established. While Plaintiff references prescribed medication side effects that impair his ability to

14

function on a daily basis, Plaintiff has provided insufficient information and evidence for the Court’s

15

consideration. Plaintiff has not identified what the prescribed medications are intended to treat—the

16

Court presumes the referenced medications may treat mental or emotional disorders—nor has Plaintiff

17

shown these medications have in fact been prescribed or that those prescribed medications may involve

18

incapacitating side effects.

19

Plaintiff's physical and mental conditions alone are insufficient to warrant the appointment of

20

counsel. The Court notes that, while an incapacitating mental disability may warrant the appointment of

21

counsel in some cases, there must exist some “nexus” between the pro se litigant’s mental disorder and

22

his “ability to articulate his claims.” McElroy v. Cox, Civil Case No. 3:08-cv-01221-JM-AJB, 2009 WL

23

4895360 at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009) (evidence submitted to establish nexus; counsel appointed).

24

The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s concern about his ability to litigate his case particularly

25

where the trial in this matter has now been set for November 15, 2022. Nevertheless, Plaintiff must

26

offer the Court more information and evidence to support his request for the appointment of counsel.

27

Plaintiff must show a nexus between any physical or mental disorder and Plaintiff’s ability to articulate

28

his claims. Plaintiff may wish to renew his request to the Court by submitting a motion accompanied by
2

1

additional information and evidence, and addressing the required nexus noted above, allowing for

2

proper consideration of Plaintiff’s request.

3

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED:

4

Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 96) is DENIED without prejudice.

5
6
7
8

Dated:

August 25, 2022
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3