(PC) Correa v. Bravdrick ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELO CORREA, No. 1:19-cv-00369-ADA-BAK (GSA) (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. (Doc. 89) 14 BRAUDRICK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Angelo Correa is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 89.) 21 Plaintiff contends the Court should appoint counsel to represent him because he cannot afford 22 counsel, his imprisonment greatly limits his ability to litigate, the issues are complex and will 23 require significant research and investigation, including “obtain[ing] records” and locat[ing] 24 witnesses,” and counsel would more effectively present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. 25 (Id. at 2-5.) 26 // 27 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Applicable Legal Standards 3 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions. Rand v. 4 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en 5 banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Additionally, the Court cannot require an attorney to 6 represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 7 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 8 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 9 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 10 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 11 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 12 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 13 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks & 14 citations omitted). 15 B. Analysis 16 Here, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even assuming 17 Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and has made serious allegations that, if proven, would 18 entitle him to relief, Plaintiff’s case is not extraordinary. Plaintiff’s claims involve the use of 19 excessive force by Defendants Braudrick and Maddux, as well as deliberate indifference to 20 serious medical needs by Defendant Torres,1 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Such claims 21 are common to prisoner civil rights litigation. 22 Additionally, while the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro 23 se status and his incarceration, inability to investigate, and to present evidence and adequately 24 cross-examine witnesses, the relevant test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the 25 appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Most 26 actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se litigant will seldom be 27 1 The undersigned has recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the claim of a deliberate 1 in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case”). The test is whether 2 exceptional circumstances exist, and here, they do not. Normal challenges faced by pro se 3 litigants do not warrant appointment of counsel. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610, 612 4 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because the plaintiff's “circumstances were not 5 exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants”); Faultry v. 6 Saechao, 2020 WL 2561596, at *2 (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) (stating that “[c]ircumstances 7 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 8 establish exceptional circumstances supporting appointment of counsel” and noting that the 9 “impacts of the COVID-19 health crisis on prison operations are also common to all prisoners”); 10 Courtney v. Kandel, 2020 WL 1432991, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (challenges conducting 11 discovery and preparing for trial “are ordinary for prisoners pursuing civil rights claim” and 12 cannot form the basis for appointment of counsel). 13 Next, the Court considers whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Following 14 consideration of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s 15 claims, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations to deny in part, and grant in part, 16 Defendants’ motion. (Doc. 82.) The undersigned recommended that Defendants’ motion be 17 denied as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants Braudrick and Maddux, and 18 granted as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Torres. 19 (Id.) These findings are now pending before the assigned district judge. Whether Plaintiff is likely 20 to succeed on the merits of his claims cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings. 21 Further, based on a review of the record to date, the Court is unable to find that Plaintiff is 22 unable to adequately articulate his claims. Plaintiff has diligently litigated his case for more than 23 three years now. Plaintiff has participated in an evidentiary hearing. (See Doc. 57.) He has filed 24 numerous motions beyond those seeking an extension of time. (See, e.g., Docs. 46, 47, 58, 66, 86 25 & 87.) Further, Plaintiff has opposed dispositive motions filed by Defendants. (See Docs. 42 & 26 79.) 27 // 1 appointment of counsel in this action. 2 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 4 counsel (Doc. 89) is DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 26, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:19-cv-00369

Filed Date: 8/26/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024