Puckett v. Agboli et al

Filing 133

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 03/28/2023 DENYING the 131 Request for Appointment of Counsel and Access to Mental Health Records. (Spichka, K.)

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 renewed motion for the appointment of

19

counsel, ECF No. 131.

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.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion
with respect to appointment of counsel because:
. . . 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.
In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional

8

circumstances. Plaintiff has attached documents detailing his mental health problems and level of

9

mental health care. See ECF No. 131. The attached documents do not indicate Plaintiff is unable

10

to properly bring his case at trial. Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to produce well written

11

and coherent motions to this Court. Plaintiff indicated in his motion that he is competent but

12

struggles with focus. Id. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied because the issues involved in this

13

case are not factually or legally complex, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his

14

claims on his own, and, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood that he

15

will ultimately prevail on the merits. Notably, as with Plaintiff’s prior motion for the

16

appointment of counsel, Plaintiff’s current motion does not outline any exceptional circumstances

17

justifying the appointment of counsel.

18

As to Plaintiffs request for access to his mental health records, the request is

19

denied. Plaintiff requested his mental health records but was told he would have to wait five

20

months. Id. Plaintiff was never denied access to his mental health records but informed of the

21

time it would take to gain access. Additionally, Plaintiff was provided mental health assessment

22

forms that he attached to this motion. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he has been denied access to

23

this mental health records.

24

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

25

appointment of counsel and access to mental health records, ECF No. 131, is denied.

26

Dated: March 28, 2023

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2