Puckett v. Agboli et al
Filing
124
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 06/03/22 DENYING 122 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice.(Licea Chavez, V)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,
12
13
14
No. 2:14-CV-2776-JAM-DMC-P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
A. AGBOLI, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
17
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel,
19
ECF No. 122.
20
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to
21
require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist.
22
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the
23
voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935
24
F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
25
A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success
26
on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the
27
complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is
28
dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the
1
1
Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment
2
of counsel because:
3
4
5
6
. . . Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to
articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not
of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it
extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.
Id. at 1017.
7
In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional
8
circumstances. Here, Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to competently prepare and present his
9
case due to the nature and severity of his mental illness. ECF No. 122. In particular, Plaintiff
10
claims that he experiences manic episodes and hears voices, and that he has been placed on
11
suicide watch. See id. He also claims that he is receiving the highest possible level of California
12
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) mental health care. See id. At the time
13
the motion before the Court was submitted, Plaintiff claims that he was hospitalized and
14
medicated and receiving once-weekly therapy sessions, an arrangement which was expected to
15
last up to 12 weeks depending on mood stabilization. See id. Plaintiff also asserts that he has
16
attempted suicide six times. See id.
17
According to Plaintiff, this is his twelfth year on psychiatric medications, and that
18
they have not relieved his “constant flashbacks or mental illness actions.” Id. Plaintiff claims
19
that his mental state fluctuates from “stable” to experiencing “mood swings to harm my self [sic]
20
or go manic or tunnel vision.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that, as a consequence of this condition, he is
21
unable to properly present his case, “especially now trying to find inmate witnesses or how to use
22
their affidavits if out of CDCR as the incident is [nine years] ago.” Id. As a result, Plaintiff
23
requests the appointment of counsel to allow him to articulate his claim in light of the complexity
24
of the legal issues involved. See id. However, Plaintiff has submitted no documentation in
25
support of these claims. Without such documentation, this Court cannot evaluate whether or not
26
Plaintiff is able to present his claims on his own.
27
28
This Court has previously noted that the legal issues at hand in the present case are
straightforward constitutional violations, including Eight Amendment excessive force claims;
2
1
thus, the factual and legal issues involved in this case are not unusually complex. Furthermore, at
2
this stage of the case, the Court still cannot say that Plaintiff has established a particular
3
likelihood of success on the merits. While these factors are not individually dispositive, any
4
evaluation of these factors in support of a motion to appoint counsel requires supporting
5
documentation; that documentation is absent from the motion at hand.
6
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel, ECF No. 122, is denied without prejudice.
8
9
Dated: June 3, 2022
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
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?