(PC) Puckett v. Agboli ( 2023 )

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, No. 2:14-CV-2776-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 A. AGBOLI, 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, ECF No. 131. 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. 1 In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion 2 || with respect to appointment 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 4 of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it 5 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. ‘ Id. at 1017. 7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 8 | circumstances. Plaintiff attached documents detailing his mental health problems and level of 9 || mental health care. See ECF No. 131. The attached documents do not indicate Plaintiff is unable 10 || to properly bring his case at trial. Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to produce well written 11 || and coherent motions to this Court. Plaintiff indicated in his motion that he is competent but 12 | struggles with focus. Id. Plaintiff's motion will be denied because the issues involved in this 13 || case are not factually or legally complex, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his 14 | claims on his own, and, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood that he 15 | will ultimately prevail on the merits. Notably, as with Plaintiff's prior motion for the 16 || appointment of counsel, Plaintiff's current motion does not outline any exceptional circumstances 17 || justifying the appointment of counsel. 18 As to Plaintiffs request for access to his mental health records, the request is 19 | denied. Plaintiff requested his mental health records but was told he would have to wait five 20 | months. Id. Plaintiff was never denied access to his mental health records but informed of the 21 || time it would take to gain access. Additionally, Plaintiff was provided mental health assessment 22 || forms that he attached to this motion. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he has been denied access to 23 || this mental health records. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the 25 || appointment of counsel and access to mental health records, ECF No. 131, is denied. 26 | Dated: March 28, 2023 Co 27 DENNIS M. COTA 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE