Puckett v. Agboli et al

Filing 129

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/17/2023 DENYING, without prejudice, plaintiff's 128 request for the appointment of counsel and access to mental health records. (Yin, K)

Case 2:14-cv-02776-DAD-DMC Document 129 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3
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
15

No. 2:14-CV-2776-JAM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

A. AGBOLI, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel

19

and access to his mental health records, ECF No. 128.

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

Case 2:14-cv-02776-DAD-DMC Document 129 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3
1

Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment

2

of counsel because:

3

. . . 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.

4
5

Id. at 1017.

6
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 case

9

due to the nature and severity of his mental illness. See ECF No. 128. Plaintiff claims that he

10

hears voices and has recently attempted to commit suicide. See id. Additionally, Plaintiff claims

11

he is receiving the highest possible level of mental health care at the California Department of

12

Corrections and Rehabilitation. See id. Plaintiff asserts that, as a consequence of his condition, he

13

is unable to properly present his case. As such, Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to

14

allow him to articulate his claim in the light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id.
However, there is nothing in Plaintiff’s motion or other filings to indicate he is

15
16

unable to comprehend these proceedings. In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff has

17

attached no documentation to his current motion for the appointment of counsel establishing the

18

level of his mental health care, or limitations posed by his mental health problems. The Court

19

also notes that Plaintiff’s motion is well-written and coherent. Further, a review of the file in this

20

case reflects that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims, which are neither factually nor legally

21

complex. Finally, the Court still cannot say that Plaintiff has established a particular likelihood of

22

success on the merits.

23

As to Plaintiff’s request for access to his mental health records, the request is denied

24

without prejudice. It is the Court’s understanding that inmates may be permitted access to their prison

25

file, including medical records, on the inmate’s request to appropriate prison officials. If, after

26

making such request, Plaintiff is still unable to access his mental health records, the Court will

27

entertain a renewed motion.

28

///

2

Case 2:14-cv-02776-DAD-DMC Document 129 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3
1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the

2

appointment of counsel and access to mental health records, ECF No. 128, is denied, without

3

prejudice to a renewal of either or both requests for relief, upon the showing referenced above.

4

Pending such further motion(s), the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 128 as a

5

pending motion.

6
7

Dated: January 17, 2023

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3