Opinion
2:20-CV-0070-DAD-DMC-P
06-22-2023
ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD Plaintiff, v. MARTIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 68.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims on his own in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. Neither factor is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision. See id. In Terrell, the Ninth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to appointment of counsel because:
Terrell demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate his claim. The facts he alleged and the issues he raised were not of substantial complexity. The compelling evidence against Terrell made it extremely unlikely that he would succeed on the merits.Id. at 1017.
In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is currently suffering significant mental difficulties which interfere with his self-representative status. See ECF No. 68, pg. 1. “An incapacitating mental disability may be grounds for appointment of counsel in some cases, but a plaintiff making that argument must present substantial evidence of incompetence.” Meeks v. Nunez, No. 13cv973-GPC (BGS), 2017 WL 476425, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) (citing McElroy v. Cox, Civil No. 08-1221 JM (AJB), 2009 WL 4895360 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009). The mere claim that Plaintiff suffers from mental difficulties that may make pursing this case more difficult is not enough to establish exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel.
In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff has attached no documentation to his current motion establishing limitations posed by his mental health problems. Plaintiff has failed to identify what conditions he suffers from, explain how his conditions prevent him from proceeding without assistance, or provide medical documentation supporting his claimed impairments.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff's motion is well-written and coherent. Further, a review of the file in this case reflects that Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims, which are neither factually nor legally complex. Finally, the Court still cannot say at this stage of the proceedings that Plaintiff has established a particular likelihood of success on the merits.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 68, is denied without prejudice to a renewed request supported by the necessary showings.