Upshaw v. Chau et al
Filing
8
ORDER Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF No. 5 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 5/5/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(axc)
Case 3:22-cv-00183-JO-BGS Document 8 Filed 05/05/22 PageID.50 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
John William UPSHAW,
Case No.: 22-cv-00183-JO-BGS
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 5]
Dr. John CHAU,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a letter in which he requested the appointment of counsel.
21
(ECF No. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the request is DENIED.
22
I.
BACKGROUND
23
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth
24
Amendment against Dr. Chau and Warden Pollard. (ECF No. 1.) Complaint alleged that
25
he was injured when he fell off the upper bunk and severely injured his left hip. (Id. at 3.)
26
The Triage Center allegedly told the Plaintiff that he was fine and made him walk back to
27
his housing unit. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that he complained every week from March 2020
28
until September 2020 of severe pain and discomfort and sought medical attention. (Id.)
1
22-cv-00183-JO-BGS
Case 3:22-cv-00183-JO-BGS Document 8 Filed 05/05/22 PageID.51 Page 2 of 4
1
Plaintiff also alleged that despite being in clear distress, “the doctor kept denying anything
2
was wrong and he kept insisting that [the Plaintiff] was ‘chasing narcotics.’” (Id.) Plaintiff
3
claimed that it was not until he begged on his knees that Dr. Chau ordered an expedited
4
M.R.I., which Plaintiff alleged showed an injury. (Id.) Plaintiff indicated that Dr. Chau
5
saw him in extreme pain, but still denied pain reliving medication adequate to handle his
6
pain and denied medical treatment that would have diagnosed and treated his injury. (Id.
7
at 4.) Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Chau repeatedly downplayed and discounted his pain and
8
injury and it caused him months of suffering. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleged that Dr. Chau
9
discriminated against him due to his past history with addiction. (Id. at 5.)
10
The Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and screening the Complaint
11
dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Chau and Plaintiff’s Eighth
12
Amendment claim against Warden Pollard, but found the Eighth Amendment claim as to
13
Dr. Chau sufficiently pled to survive sua sponte pre-answer screening. (ECF No. 4.) The
14
Court gave the Plaintiff 45 days to either notify the Court that he will proceed only under
15
his Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Chau or file a First Amended Complaint
16
correcting the deficiencies. (Id. at 11–12.)
17
On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter informing the Court that he was planning
18
on only pursuing his Eighth Amendment claim as to Dr. Chau and dropping his allegation
19
against Warden Pollard. (ECF No. 5.) Further, Plaintiff requested that the Court appoint
20
him an attorney because he is lost as to how to proceed with his case and really needs help.
21
(Id.)
22
II.
DISCUSSION
23
Plaintiff has filed a letter in which he requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF
24
No. 5.) Plaintiff requested that the Court “appoint [him] an attorney because [he is] lost as
25
how to do this and [he] really need[s] help[.]” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff did not provide any other
26
reasons for why he needs counsel appointed.
27
///
28
///
2
22-cv-00183-JO-BGS
Case 3:22-cv-00183-JO-BGS Document 8 Filed 05/05/22 PageID.52 Page 3 of 4
1
A.
2
“[T]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims[.]”
3
Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 560
4
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil
5
actions.”). “However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for
6
indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 760 (citing
7
Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)).
8
determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the
9
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his
10
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (quoting Weygandt
11
v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Cano v Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218
12
(9th Cir. 2014). “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed
13
together.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 760.
Legal Standard
“When
14
B.
15
Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of
16
counsel. Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to present both factual and legal arguments
17
to the Court and appears to have a basic understanding of the legal process. For example,
18
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Chau was found to contain allegations
19
sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) and
20
1915A(b). (See ECF No. 4.)
Analysis
21
Additionally, it does not appear that the legal issues involved are so complex that
22
counsel is warranted at this stage of the proceedings. See Wilbron v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d
23
1328, 1331 (noting that, “[i]f all that was required to establish successfully the complexity
24
of the relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts,
25
practically all cases would involve complex legal issues.”). The challenges Plaintiff
26
identifies are not unique to Plaintiff and could arguably be asserted by almost every
27
prisoner. And, although the Court recognizes physical and mental health concerns might
28
3
22-cv-00183-JO-BGS
Case 3:22-cv-00183-JO-BGS Document 8 Filed 05/05/22 PageID.53 Page 4 of 4
1
under some circumstances warrant appointment of counsel, here, it is not at all clear that
2
any of Plaintiff’s asserted health concerns would impact his ability to purse his case.
3
As to his likelihood of success on the merits, as noted above, Plaintiff had some
4
success at the pleading stage of this case, being allowed to proceed on his Eighth
5
Amendment claim as to Dr. Chau. However, when his likelihood of success is considered
6
in conjunction with his ability to articular his claims and the complexity of the issues
7
involved, he has not shown exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel
8
at this time.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.
9
10
(ECF No. 5.)
11
III.
CONCLUSION
12
Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: May 5, 2022
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
22-cv-00183-JO-BGS
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?