(PC) Puckett v. Kelso

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL

14 J. BARRIOS, HERNANDEZ, WHITE, and (Doc. No. 88) GUTIERREZ, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 19 No. 88). Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his Third 20 Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 9, 73). Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he has 21 been “on and off suicidal and losing concentration at times” and because he believes he can 22 prevail on the merits of his case with assistance from an attorney. (Doc. No. 88 at 1). 23 The Court previously denied Plaintiff appointment of counsel in its Orders dated February 24 17, 2023 (Doc. No. 17) and December 19, 2023 (Doc. No. 58). The Court adopts herein the law 25 governing appointment of counsel set forth in the Court’s February 17, 2023 and December 19, 26 2023 Orders as through set forth at length herein. 27 Plaintiff again has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” 28 Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff’s claims of mental 1 | health challenges alone are insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” standard 2 || required to justify appointment of counsel. Torres v. Jorrin, 2020 WL 5909529, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 3 | Oct. 6, 2020) (quoting Thompson v. Paramo, 2018 WL 4357993, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 4 | 2018)); see also Jones v. Kuppinger, 2015 WL 5522290, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) 5 | (‘Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as a deficient general education, lack of 6 | knowledge of the law, mental illness and disability, do not in themselves establish exceptional 7 | circumstances warranting appointment of voluntary civil counsel.”). Nor does Plaintiff submit 8 || evidence to demonstrate a nexus between his alleged mental health impairments and an inability 9 | to articulate his claim or litigate this case. West v. Dizon, No. 2014 WL 114659, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 10 | Jan. 9, 2014) (denying appointment of counsel when Plaintiff submitted no evidence of mental 11 | disability as to the “nature or effects” of the disability). Further, this case is in the discovery 12 | stage, so it is difficult for the Court to determine Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. 13 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Reed v. Paramo, No. 18-cy- 14 | 361-JLS (LL), 2020 WL 2767358, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) (holding it was too early to 15 || determine plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits because fact discovery had not been 16 | completed). 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 Plaintiffs third motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 88) is DENIED. 19 20 Dated: _ October 16, 2024 law Zh. Sareh Zackte 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28