Williams v. Baker et al
Filing
69
ORDER on Recruitment of Counsel 66 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 2/7/2020. (Orozco, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHANNON WILLIAMS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-JDP
ORDER ON RECRUITMENT OF COUNSEL
ECF No. 66
OFFICER BAKER,
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff Shannon Williams is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388
19
(1971). On May 14, 2019, the court ordered plaintiff to address whether his remaining Eighth
20
Amendment allegations in plaintiff’s complaint state a claim upon which relief may be granted in
21
light of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017). ECF No. 62. On August 13, 2019,
22
plaintiff notified the court that he could not brief the Ziglar issue without access to legal
23
materials, which he lacked while in a special or secure housing unit (“SHU”). ECF No. 64 at 1.
24
On October 10, 2019, plaintiff requested appointment of counsel, stating that he remained in the
25
SHU and still lacked access to certain legal materials. ECF No. 66.
26
We will attempt to recruit counsel for the limited purpose of briefing the Ziglar issue.
27
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Palmer v.
28
Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney
1
1
to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490
2
U.S. 296, 298 (1989). But we can, and in this case will, request the voluntary assistance of
3
counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
4
ANALYSIS
5
Without a means to compensate counsel, the court seeks volunteer counsel only in
6
exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such circumstances exist, the court “must
7
evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate
8
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113
9
F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.
10
11
1998).
The viability of plaintiff’s claim in light of Ziglar appears to be a close and undecided
12
legal question. Plaintiff’s only remaining claim in this litigation is an Eighth Amendment claim
13
for excessive force, brought under the authority of Bivens. See ECF Nos. 23, 50. Plaintiff alleges
14
that defendant Baker, while handcuffing plaintiff, planted plaintiff’s arm on the ground and
15
intentionally twisted it, causing severe injury. See ECF No. 12 at 3. Ziglar outlined a two-part
16
test for determining when the Bivens remedy should be extended, which our circuit has
17
characterized as follows: “First, courts must determine whether the plaintiff is seeking a Bivens
18
remedy in a new context. If the answer to this question is ‘no,’ then no further analysis is
19
required. If the answer is ‘yes,’ then the court must determine whether special factors counsel
20
hesitation.” Lanuza v. Love, 899 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citations and quotation
21
marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit has not yet determined how either step should apply to a case
22
like plaintiff’s, and courts appear to be grappling with similar issues as they struggle to apply the
23
relevant Supreme Court precedent. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980); Luis Buenrostro v.
24
Fajardo, 770 F. App’x 807, 808 (9th Cir. 2019); Jacobs v. Alam, 915 F.3d 1028, 1038 (6th Cir.
25
2019); Schwarz v. Meinberg, 761 F. App’x 732, 734 (9th Cir. 2019); Rodriguez v. Swartz, 899
26
F.3d 719, 748 (9th Cir. 2018). These issues are complex, moreover, and the court agrees with
27
plaintiff’s own assessment that he will not be able to brief them adequately.
28
2
1
ORDER
2
Because the court has determined that this issue warrants counsel, we refer this case to
3
Sujean Park, Pro Bono Director, to seek the voluntary assistance of counsel, for the limited
4
purpose of seeking briefing on the proper application of Ziglar v. Abassi. If counsel is obtained,
5
the court will determine a briefing schedule that includes the defendant.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated:
9
February 7, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
No. 205.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?