Sekona v. Custino, et al.
Filing
107
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 02/27/19 DENYING 105 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
ETUATE SEKONA,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-CV-0517-JAM-DMC-P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
F. CUSTINO, et al.,
15
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 (Doc. 105).
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
. . . 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. As to success on the merits, while defendants have filed an answer, no discovery
9
has been conducted and no issues have been briefed.1 Therefore, the court cannot say at this stage
10
of the proceedings plaintiff has any particular likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, the
11
court finds the claims raised in this case – an Eighth Amendment safety claim and a due process
12
claim – are not complex legally or factually, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion in the instant motion
13
for counsel, and plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate them on his own.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
14
15
appointment of counsel (Doc. 105) is denied.
16
17
18
Dated: February 27, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the court has recommended be
denied, is based on exhaustion and not the merits of plaintiff’s claims.
2
1
28
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?