(PC) Muhammad v. Linennger ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD No. 2:20-CV-0070-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARTIN, 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 motion for the appointment of counsel, 19 ECF No. 68. 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 1 dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the 2 Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 3 of counsel because: 4 Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not 5 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 6 Id. at 1017. 7 8 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 9 In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is currently suffering significant mental difficulties which 10 interfere with his self-representative status. See ECF No. 68, pg. 1. “An incapacitating mental 11 disability may be grounds for appointment of counsel in some cases, but a plaintiff making that 12 argument must present substantial evidence of incompetence.” Meeks v. Nunez, No. 13cv973- 13 GPC (BGS), 2017 WL 476425, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (citing McElroy v. Cox, Civil No. 14 08–1221 JM (AJB), 2009 WL 4895360 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009). The mere claim that 15 Plaintiff suffers from mental difficulties that may make pursing this case more difficult is not 16 enough to establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. 17 In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff has attached no documentation to his 18 current motion establishing limitations posed by his mental health problems. Plaintiff has failed to 19 identify what conditions he suffers from, explain how his conditions prevent him from proceeding 20 without assistance, or provide medical documentation supporting his claimed impairments. 21 The Court also notes that Plaintiff's motion is well-written and coherent. Further, a 22 review of the file in this case reflects that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims, which are 23 neither factually nor legally complex. Finally, the Court still cannot say at this stage of the 24 proceedings that Plaintiff has established a particular likelihood of success on the merits. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for the 2 || appointment of counsel, ECF No. 68, is denied without prejudice to a renewed request supported 3 || by the necessary showings. 4 5 | Dated: June 22, 2023 Svc 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28