(PC) Beckett v. Moreno ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MATTHEW H. BECKETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01427-BAM (PC) 6 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 7 v. (ECF No. 56) 8 MORENO, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 12 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 13 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Sedillo and Moreno for excessive force in 14 violation of the Eighth Amendment for the incident on October 21, 2018, for force used after the 15 time Plaintiff lost consciousness. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 16 (ECF No. 45.) 17 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, filed February 18 14, 2024. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff requests that the Court certify him as “competent to move 19 forward with litigation of these matters.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that the Court has failed to 20 clearly state Plaintiff’s competency or appoint a Forensic Team for said clearance. Plaintiff 21 argues that because he is currently being held under California Penal Code 1026 for not 22 possessing mental faculties equivalent to sanity, the Court cannot move forward with this case 23 without addressing this issue. Plaintiff objects to the failure to recognize his current situation— 24 hospitalization—as anything less than “extreme circumstances.” (Id.) 25 Plaintiff is reminded that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 26 this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 27 grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 28 represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 1 of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 2 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 3 1525. 4 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 5 volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 6 “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 7 the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 9 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 10 circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 11 would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 12 almost daily by prisoners suffering from serious mental health conditions who also must litigate 13 their cases with limited access to the law library and without the assistance of counsel. The fact 14 that Plaintiff has not been found competent for purposes of a criminal matter does not indicate 15 that he is unable to litigate this civil action. 16 Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 17 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although the Court has found that Plaintiff’s 18 complaint states cognizable claims, this does not mean that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. 19 Furthermore, based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff 20 cannot adequately articulate his claims. 21 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 56), is HEREBY 22 DENIED, without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: February 15, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28