Puckett v. Agboli et al

Filing 138

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 6/5/2023 DENYING plaintiff's 137 request for the appointment of counsel and access to mental health records. (Yin, 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-DAD-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. 137.

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

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.

7

In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional

8

circumstances. Plaintiff states that appointment of counsel is warranted to assist him with jury

9

selection and cross-examination of witnesses at trial. See ECF No. 137. Plaintiff states that he is

10

not familiar with these procedures. See id. Plaintiff describes circumstances which are common

11

among indigent inmates whose cases are ready for trial. He does not describe any circumstances

12

which are extraordinary or exceptional. Further, a review of the docket reflects that the issues for

13

trial in this case are neither legally nor factually complex, and Plaintiff has demonstrated an

14

ability to articulate his claims sufficiently on his own.

15
16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel and access to mental health records, ECF No. 137, is denied.

17
18

Dated: June 5, 2023

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2