Puckett v. Agboli et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 08/16/18 DENYING 46 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)

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

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

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

A. AGBOLI, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has

20

ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

21

§ 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

22

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

23

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

24

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional

25

circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

26

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal
1

1

issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be

2

viewed together before reaching a decision. See id.

3

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

4

circumstances. Plaintiff argues that appointment of counsel is warranted because: (1) he is a

5

prisoner with limited access to legal research; (2) he is untrained in the law; (3) he is unable to

6

obtain legal training; (4) he is indigent; and (5) the legal issues involved in this case are complex.

7

As to the first four reasons, the court finds that these are not extraordinary circumstances but

8

circumstances common to most state prisoners pursing civil actions in federal court.

9

As to the last reason, the court does not agree with plaintiff that the legal issues

10

involved in his case are complex. Plaintiff claims that defendants used excessive force during

11

the course of a cell extraction. Plaintiff also claims that defendant Luis failed to provide

12

adequate medical care and that defendant Lynch disregarded a risk to his safety. These are not

13

legally complex claims.

14
15
16
17

Finally, a review of plaintiff’s filings in this case thus far indicates that he is able
to articulate his claims and to prosecute this action on his own.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel (Doc. 46) is denied.

18
19
20
21

DATED: August 16, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
2