Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 95)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s fifth Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 

No. 95). Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his Third 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 9, 73). Plaintiff again seeks appointment of counsel citing to a 

“mental illness” that he suffers from “at times.” (Doc. No. 95). 

The Court previously has denied Plaintiff appointment of counsel in its Orders dated 

February 17, 2023 (Doc. No. 17), December 19, 2023 (Doc. No. 58), October 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 

89) and October 22, 2024 (Doc. No. 94). The Court adopts herein the law governing appointment 

of counsel set forth in the Court’s February 17, 2023, December 19, 2023, Orders as through set 

forth at length herein. 

Plaintiff again does not meet his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” 

Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff’s claims of mental 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 107 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

health challenges alone are insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” standard 

required to justify appointment of counsel. Torres v. Jorrin, 2020 WL 5909529, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Oct. 6, 2020) (quoting Thompson v. Paramo, 2018 WL 4357993, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 

2018)); see also Jones v. Kuppinger, 2015 WL 5522290, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) 

(“Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as a deficient general education, lack of 

knowledge of the law, mental illness and disability, do not in themselves establish exceptional 

circumstances warranting appointment of voluntary civil counsel.”). Plaintiff provides no 

explanation as to how his alleged mental health impairments have impeded his ability to articulate 

his claim or litigate this case. West v. Dizon, No. 2014 WL 114659, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) 

(denying appointment of counsel when Plaintiff submitted no evidence of mental disability as to 

the “nature or effects” of the disability). Indeed, Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary 

judgment and various motions demonstrating his ability to prosecute this action to date. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s fifth Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 95) is DENIED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 107 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2