(PC) Brooks v. Smith ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE LEE BROOKS, II, No. 2:22-CV-0062-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAINELLE SMITH, 15 Defendant. 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 are Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of 19 counsel, ECF Nos. 17, 21. 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. In Terrell, the 1 Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment 2 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 extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits. 5 Id. at 1017. 6 7 In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional 8 circumstances. Plaintiff states that he attempted suicide while being incarcerated. See ECF No. 9 17, Ex. A, pg.1. He alleges that, while he informed the staff psychologist about his intent to hang 10 himself, no preventative steps were taken. See id. As underlying cause for his suicidality, 11 Plaintiff provides his experienced “physical and mental distress due to the high risk of infection 12 from COVID-19 […] due to overcrowding and congregated living areas.” See id. Plaintiff 13 contends that the appointment of counsel is warranted in his case because (1) he is incarcerated 14 and in psychiatric care; (2) he lacks the adequate legal knowledge to articulate his claims in the 15 event of trial, and (3) he would be disadvantaged throughout the discovery process and at trial due 16 to a lack of experience and access. See ECF No. 17, pg.2. 17 However, Plaintiff’s stated circumstances such as the lack of knowledge and 18 difficulties to access legal research are common to almost all prisoners and, as such, not 19 extraordinary. Furthermore, at this stage of the proceedings before discovery, it cannot be said 20 that Plaintiff has established a particular likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, a review 21 of Plaintiff’s filings indicates his ability to articulate his claims, which are neither factually nor 22 legally complex. Further, to the extent of Plaintiff’s suicidality and respective treatment schedule 23 interfere with his ability to meet deadlines, the Court may accommodate reasonable time 24 extensions for good cause shown. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's requests for the 2 | appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 17, 21, are denied. 3 4 | Dated: June 6, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 5 DENNIS M. COTA 6 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