(PC) Revoal v. Bakersfield Medical Center ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM REVOAL, 1:22-cv-00801-SKO (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 11 v. APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 12 BAKERSFIELD MEDICAL CENTER, et al., (Doc. 12) 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff William Revoal is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff Motion to Request a Court 20 Appointed Attorney.” (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff states he is presently on “Medical Parole” in a nursing 21 home and is unable to care for himself. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states he is bedridden and paralyzed 22 “from the chest down to [his] feet.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges he is “mentally disabled 23 permanently” and suffers from nerve damage to his spine. (Id. at 1-2.) He has schizophrenia, 24 severe depression and an anxiety disorder. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states he needs “assistance with 25 meeting the courts request in a competent and timely manner.” (Id.) 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions. Rand v. 28 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 1 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). Nor can the Court require an attorney to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in 3 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 4 to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 5 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 6 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 7 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 8 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 9 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks & 10 citations omitted). 11 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. First, 12 regarding Plaintiff’s assertion that he needs “assistance with meeting the court[‘]s request,” the 13 Court has made no recent requests of Plaintiff nor has Plaintiff been ordered to take any action in 14 this matter. This matter is currently pending screening by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 15 1915A(a), and the Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint, in due course, before ordering Plaintiff 16 to take further action, if any. Further, although the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s 17 complaint, a brief review of the complaint reveals it alleges a claim concerning medical care. The 18 Court is faced with these types of prisoner civil rights claims almost daily. While the Court 19 recognizes that Plaintiff is at a disadvantage due to his pro se status and his “medical parole” 20 status, the test is not whether Plaintiff would benefit from the appointment of counsel; the test is 21 whether exceptional circumstances exist. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 22 Cir. 1986). 23 Second, the Court notes Plaintiff states he is presently residing1 in a nursing home on 24 medical parole, is paralyzed and bedridden, suffers from schizophrenia, severe depression and 25 anxiety, and “is unable to care for himself.” However, Plaintiff has not provided evidence of his 26 27 1 When Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was in custody at Corcoran State Prison. (See Doc. 1 at 1; see also Doc. 11 [Notice of Change of Address from Corcoran State Prison to Golden Legacy Care Center in 28 Sylmar, California].) 1 claims in this regard. A review of Plaintiff’s June 30, 2022, complaint reveals Plaintiff alleges he 2 underwent surgery on June 21, 2020, for an abscess on his chest and following surgery he was 3 “unable to walk or feel [his] body from the chest down to [his] toes.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff 4 asserts he has “nerve damage to [his] spinal cord, and lost both of [his] legs.” (Id.) The complaint 5 was prepared and signed by Plaintiff (id. at 3), and there is no indication in the complaint that 6 Plaintiff was suffering from any condition that affected his ability to litigate this case or to 7 articulate his claims. 8 Plaintiff’s motion seeking the appointment of counsel also appears to have been prepared 9 and signed by Plaintiff and is readily understood. (Doc. 12.) There is little doubt most pro se 10 litigants “find it difficult to articulate [their] claims,” and would be better served with the 11 assistance of counsel. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. For this reason, in the absence of counsel, 12 federal courts employ procedures which are highly protective of a pro se litigant's rights. See 13 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding pro se complaint to less stringent standard) 14 (per curiam). In fact, where a plaintiff appears pro se in a civil rights case, the court must construe 15 the pleadings liberally and afford the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. Karim–Panahi v. Los 16 Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule of liberal construction is 17 “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 18 1992). Thus, where a pro se litigant can “articulate his claims” in light of the relative complexity 19 of the matter, the “exceptional circumstances” which might require the appointment of counsel do 20 not exist. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; accord Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 In sum, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is 22 likely to succeed on the merits. Nor can the Court conclude Plaintiff is unable to articulate his 23 claims considering their complexity. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to the appointment of counsel. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 3 counsel (Doc. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 24, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28