explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 1 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases
How later courts described this case
- explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not 1 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases
- addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases
- “A party proceeding pro se in a civil 4 | lawsuit is entitled to a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is 5 | presented.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM, Case No. 1:21-cv-00849-HBK (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
13 v.
(Doc. No. 16)
14 COUNTY OF TULARE, MIKE
BOUDREAUX, WELL PATH MEDICAL
15 GROUP, and DR. LIBERSTEIN, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO PROVIDE
PLAINTIFF WITH COURTESY COPY OF
16 Defendants. COMPLAINT
17
18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Reply; and Request for Counsel
19 Appointment” filed August 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 16). Plaintiff, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se
20 and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. (Doc. Nos. 1, 13). Plaintiff seeks appointment
21 counsel because he is “gravely disabled” and “mentally unfit to be able to choose his own
22 medication since August 2018.” (Doc. No. 16). In support of his request, Plaintiff attaches an
23 order from an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) authorizing correctional officials to administer
24 Plaintiff psychiatric medication for the period of May 30, 2023 through May 30, 2024. (Id. at 5-
25 7). Plaintiff states he requires counsel so as not confuse his habeas and civil rights cases.
26 Plaintiff also states he no longer has a copy of his Complaint. (Id. at 2).
27 The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See
28 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not
1 create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has
2 discretionary authority to appoint counsel for an indigent to commence, prosecute, or defend a
3 civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (stating the court has authority to appoint counsel for
4 people unable to afford counsel); see also United States v. McQuade, 519 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir.
5 1978) (addressing relevant standard of review for motions to appoint counsel in civil cases) (other
6 citations omitted). However, motions to appoint counsel in civil cases are granted only in
7 “exceptional circumstances.” Id. at 1181. The court may consider many factors to determine if
8 exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel including, but not limited to, proof of
9 indigence, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his
10 or her claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id.; see also Rand v.
11 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en
12 banc, 154 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
13 Plaintiff has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones v.
14 Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff does not indicate the nature
15 of his alleged “mental illness” or how it affects his ability to prosecute this action. Indeed, a
16 review of the pleadings filed by plaintiff to date show he can articulate his claims in this case.
17 See Brown v. Reif, 2019 WL 989874, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2019) (denying appointment of
18 counsel where the plaintiff’s filing demonstrate ability to properly litigate case despite mental
19 illness). Further, a review of the findings attached to Plaintiff’s motion note that only if Plaintiff
20 is not administered psychiatric medication is he “gravely disabled and lacks the capacity to
21 consent or to refuse treatment with psychiatric medications.” (Doc. No. 16 at 6).
22 The fact that Plaintiff is litigating a habeas petition at the same time of the instant action
23 does not warrant the appointment of counsel. These are normal challenges faced by pro se
24 litigants, especially pro se plaintiffs that are incarcerated. Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610,
25 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because the plaintiff’s “circumstances were
26 not exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants.”)
27 Plaintiff has filed a complaint, a motion for an extension of time, and appropriately
28 responded to the Court’s July 31, 2023 Order to Show Cause by filing an application to proceed
1 | in forma pauperis. (See generally docket). Based upon the record, the Court finds Plaintiff has
2 | not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. See
3 | Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A party proceeding pro se in a civil
4 | lawsuit is entitled to a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is
5 | presented.”). Further, the Court finds the circumstances of this case at this time do not indicate
6 | that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.
7 Plaintiff also states he no longer has “a copy of the lawsuit.” (Doc. No. 16). Liberally
8 | construed, Plaintiff is requesting a copy of his Complaint. Neither Plaintiffs pro se status nor his
9 | prisoner status entitle him to receive complimentary copies. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532,
10 | at*6n. 2 (ED. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). Nonetheless, to expedite this matter, the Court will direct the
11 | Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his complaint in order that he may respond to the Court’s
12 | August 25, 2023 screening order.
13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
14 1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.
15 2. The Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of his complaint (Doc.
16 No. 1).
17
| Dated: _ September 5, 2023 Wiha. □□ fares Zackte
19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28