Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02040-11/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DIRK JAONG BOUIE, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OSCAR SMITH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2040 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a request for judicial notice, ECF No. 37, and a motion for appointment of 

counsel, ECF No. 38. 

 Plaintiff requests the court take judicial notice of a report from the Office of the Inspector 

General regarding conditions at High Desert State Prison. ECF No. 37. However, the request is 

not submitted in support of or opposition to any pending motion.1

 To the extent the report is 

intended as a supplemental attachment to the complaint, the complaint has already been screened 

and found to state a claim, making additional attachments unnecessary. The request for judicial 

notice will therefore be denied. Should plaintiff file a motion or other briefing which he seeks to 

1

 The request was filed before defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, and the 

defendants’ motion is based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies, not 

the merits of his claims. ECF No. 41. 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 44 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 3
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 

support with the Inspector General’s report, he may request judicial notice of the report at that 

time. 

Plaintiff has also filed another request for appointment of counsel. ECF No. 38. The 

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to 

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 

970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The burden 

of demonstrating exceptional circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to 

most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish 

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

In denying plaintiff’s previous request, the court the court advised plaintiff that if he was 

requesting appointment of counsel based upon his mental health conditions, the fact that he 

suffered from those conditions was not sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances and he 

would have to identify the conditions he suffered from, explain how they prevented him from 

proceeding without counsel, and provide medical documentation to support his claimed 

impairments and their effect on his functioning. ECF No. 31 at 2. Plaintiff has now filed a 

request for counsel that alleges that he is visually impaired, which limits how long he can read at 

one time; it is difficult for him to comprehend what he is reading without assistance from other 

inmates; he is mentally incompetent; and he has been receiving assistance from other inmates up 

to this point. ECF No. 38 at 3-4. He attaches various medical records, declarations from other 

inmates, and a skills profile in support of his motion. Id. at 8-26. 

Review of the medical records provided verifies that plaintiff is legally blind and has been 

diagnosed with various mental health conditions. Id. at 8-20. However, the records do not 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 44 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

support plaintiff’s contention that he is unable to proceed without the assistance of counsel. A 

psychologist’s note from January 25, 2021, states that “Bouie does not demonstrate functional 

impairments – He presents with linear and organized thought processes, works diligently on his 

legal case and corresponds with an attorney, has impeccably clean ADLs, and engages 

appropriately with peers and staff.” Id. at 17. Additionally, the declarations provided by other 

inmates largely assert that they provide him assistance by reading documents for him and assist 

him with drafting and proofreading his documents, demonstrating that he is able to get the 

assistance he requires without counsel being appointed. Id. at 22-24. 

The court further finds that the level of understanding exhibited by plaintiff in pursuing 

this case demonstrates that he can adequately represent himself. Plaintiff was able to successfully 

state a claim that survived screening, and in both the current and previous motion for counsel, as 

well as his requests for an expert witness and judicial notice, he presented a legal argument, 

supported it with allegations and an applicable rule, and cited some case law. ECF Nos. 30, 33, 

37, 38. Although plaintiff’s motions have not been successful, they demonstrate that he is 

capable of proceeding without the assistance of counsel. The court further notes that given the 

pending motion for summary judgment based on the failure to exhaust, it is not clear whether this 

case will proceed on the merits and the court is therefore unable to gauge plaintiff’s likelihood of 

success on the merits at this time. Based on these factors, plaintiff has not shown the existence of 

extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, ECF No. 37, is DENIED without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 38, is DENIED. 

DATED: March 24, 2021 

Case 2:18-cv-02040-DC-AC Document 44 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 3