Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01243-9/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- E.D. Cal. Case 1:08cv1243

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DURRELL PUCKETT,

CDCR# G-05549,

Civil No. 08-1243 BTM (POR)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 49]

vs.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON

EMPLOYEES, et al., 

Defendants.

On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed his third Motion for Appointment of Counsel. “There is

no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d

1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981));

see also Hedges v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.”) (citation omitted). Thus, federal

courts do not have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United

States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.

Case 1:08-cv-01243-BTM-POR Document 50 Filed 04/13/10 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- E.D. Cal. Case 1:08cv1243

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request”

that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.”

 See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand, 113

F.3d at 1525. “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance

requires at least an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an

evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved.’” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 42]. Plaintiff was permitted to file three Oppositions to

Defendants’ Motion [Doc. Nos. 45, 46 4] and the Motion is currently under submission requiring

no further filings from Plaintiff at this time. While Plaintiff claims that he is currently

hospitalized for psychiatric issues, at this point in the proceedings, the Court does not find that

there are “exceptional circumstances” to appoint counsel or to stay the action for 90 days as

requested by Plaintiff. 

Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 49] is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED: April 12, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-01243-BTM-POR Document 50 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2