Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01122-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FILED OCTOBER 31, 2024

(Doc. 45)

Plaintiff Devonte Fields is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This matter was originally scheduled for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge 

Sheila K. Oberto on November 5, 2024. (Doc. 35.) On October 29, 2024, Judge Oberto conducted 

a telephonic pre-settlement conference wherein it was determined a settlement conference would 

be premature. (Docs. 43, 44.) This Court subsequently issued an Amended Order Continuing and 

Resetting Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Procedures on October 31, 2024. 

(Doc. 44.) The settlement conference before Judge Oberto was continued to January 30, 2025, 

and the relevant modified deadlines provided. (Id. at 1-3.) Additionally, the order advised 

Plaintiff that he could submit a motion for the appointment of counsel and/or a motion for a 

competency determination, despite the extended stay of the proceedings. (Id. at 4.) 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 7
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

That same date, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice Motion Plaintiff is Totally lost 

Doesn’t have any Help He’s Disabled with Mental problems and learning Plaintiff shows proof of 

the claim Please Help.” (Doc. 45.) 

On November 15, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 46.) 

The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing to be a motion for the appointment of counsel and a 

motion for a competency hearing. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Parties’ Briefing

Plaintiff’s motion states: “I write with understanding of The Notice of Settlement as 

required by Local Rule 160. [¶] However, I do not understand the process[.] I don’t know how to 

respond to it. I have proof to why I can not. Please help me. I’m begging you.” (Doc. 45.) 

Attached to the motion are the following documents: (1) a letter from Alta California Regional 

Center to Plaintiff dated September 1, 2024; (2) Page 3 of an undated document from the Alta 

Regional Medical Center, identified as an “Individual Program Plan” for “Consumer: Devonte 

Shawn Dupree Fields;” (3) a CDC 128C-2 form dated August 14, 2017; (4) a handwritten page 

bearing the heading “IV. Relief” and signed August 28, 2022, by Plaintiff; (5) Page 1 of a 3-page 

document bearing the heading “IN-HOME Annual Review of IPP;” (6) the first page of a 

Psychological Evaluation and Testing Report dated May 26, 2004, prepared by Psychologist 

Jeffrey E. Miller; (7) a document titled “Mental Health Forms” from the California Men’s Colony 

dated July 17, 2019; (8) a document titled “Mental Health Documentation” from Salinas Valley 

State Prison printed September 2, 2021; (9) Page 2 of an undated document titled “Social 

Assessment.” 

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, arguing he has failed to show exceptional 

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Defendants contend the documents 

submitted by Plaintiff in support of his motion “are neither authenticated nor easily capable of 

authentication.” Moreover, Defendants argue the documents fail to identify “any diminished 

cognitive capacity” for Plaintiff resulting from a mental health diagnosis. 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 7
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

The Applicable Legal Standards

Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions. 

Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 

952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). Nor can the Court require an attorney to represent a party under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in 

“exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant 

to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 

Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks &

citations omitted).

“A party proceeding pro se in a civil lawsuit is entitled to a competency determination 

when substantial evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 

(9th Cir. 2005). 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. See McElroy v. Cox, No. 08-1221 JM (AJB), 2009 WL 4895360 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Dec. 11, 2009). 

Analysis

The Appointment of Counsel

Here, there exist no exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 

First, it is premature to assess the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits of his claims. 

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Defendants appeared in this action on July 2, 2024, and the Court 

referred the matter for an early settlement conference. The settlement conference is presently set 

for January 30, 2025. Discovery has not yet commenced, and a scheduling order concerning 

discovery will not issue until after a settlement conference is conducted and settlement efforts 

prove unsuccessful. Notably, while Plaintiff’s operative complaint survived screening, at 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 7
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

4

screening the Court is tasked with determining whether a plaintiff has sufficiently and plausibly 

alleged a cause of action or claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. The merits of the allegations are 

not tested at that stage because the Court is required to consider the factual allegations to be true 

for purposes of screening. 

Next, considering Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved, the Court finds Plaintiff able to articulate his claims in 

light of their complexity. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Plaintiff plausibly alleged excessive force 

claims against Defendants Burnes, Flores, and Sanchez. Excessive force claims are not complex. 

See, e.g., Davis v. Portillo, No. 1:22-cv-00457-KES-CDB (PC), 2024 WL 1313043, at *3 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 27, 2024); Andre-Gollihar v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:09-cv-03313 MCE KJN PS, 

2010 WL 2925358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2010) (“plaintiff's claims of excessive force and 

wrongful death are not complex”); Williams v. Whitehurst, No. 4:08CV21-SPM/AK, 2008 WL 

1766570, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2008) (“Although Plaintiff's claims are serious, they are not 

complex nor will he be required to do legal research since the court is familiar with the law on 

claims of excessive force and failure to protect”). Notably too, an exhibit to Plaintiff’s complaint 

includes a copy of a grievance dated December 9, 2019, apparently prepared by Plaintiff. The 

grievance also establishes Plaintiff is able to articulate his claims. (See Doc. 1 at 17-19.) 

To the extent Plaintiff relies upon his asserted mental or cognitive disability to support his 

request, Plaintiff is advised such a condition does not typically warrant the appointment of 

counsel. See Howard v. Rodriguez, No. 1:24-cv-00285-JLT-SAB (PC), 2024 WL 13970464, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2024) (“although Plaintiff submits several mental health records, the mere 

fact that Plaintiff receives mental health treatment does not make his case extraordinary. Indeed, 

the Court is regularly faced with cases filed by prisoners proceeding pro se while receiving 

mental health treatment”); Jones v. Kuppinger, No. 2:13-cv-0451 WBS AC P, 2015 WL 5522290, 

at *3-*4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“[c]ircumstances 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”); Fletcher v. Quin, No. 15CV2156-GPC (NLS), 2018 WL 840174, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 7
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

5

13, 2018) (impairment must be “an incapacitating mental disability” and be supported by 

“substantial evidence of incompetence”).

A Competency Hearing

In Allen, the Ninth Circuit found substantial evidence of incompetency where the 

petitioner submitted his own sworn declaration and another inmate’s declaration explaining 

petitioner’s mental illness and inability to understand the court's orders, as well as a letter from 

the petitioner’s psychiatrist detailing his diagnosed schizophrenia and medications. Allen, 408 

F.3d 1150 at 1153. In McElroy, the plaintiff, a pro se prisoner in a section 1983 case, presented 

documents, similar to those provided in Allen to support his mental disability; however, the court 

found plaintiff successfully survived screening of his complaint, successfully opposed 

Defendants' motion to dismiss, that his motions for appointment of counsel were drafted with 

clarity, the medical records showed that he functions well when properly medicated, and that

“there is no nexus between his mental disorder and his ability to articulate his claims.” McElroy, 

2009 WL 4895360 at *3.

Here, following its review of the documents submitted by Plaintiff, the undersigned 

concludes a competency hearing is unwarranted at this stage of the proceeding. Plaintiff has not 

provided the Court with a letter from his treating psychiatrist detailing any diagnosis, nor has he 

submitted any sworn declaration. The documentation provided by Plaintiff, setting aside any issue 

concerning authentication, reveals only that Plaintiff no longer receives services from Alta 

California Regional Center, and that Plaintiff previously qualified for services at some unknown 

time in the past from that agency, based on diagnoses of mild mental retardation, bipolar disorder, 

oppositional defiant disorder, and antisocial personality traits. Further documentation from Alta 

California Regional Center concerning a review of “progress on IPP” is dated from 2010, and 

provides similar information, as well as information concerning Plaintiff’s juvenile and adult 

criminal history. It also indicates that at that time Plaintiff received adaptive living skills 

instruction. The CDC 128C-2 form dated in April 2017 indicates Plaintiff received additional 

time for orientation in new situations, required the use of simple language to ensure 

understanding and prompts to complete self-care and daily living tasks, and was provided with 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 7
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

6

assistance in understanding official paperwork and extra training and supervision when given new 

jobs to perform. It further indicates a possible developmental disability prior to the age of 18.

Further, the single page provided from a Psychological Evaluation and Testing Report prepared 

by Psychologist Jeffrey E. Miller is dated more than 20 years ago and does not include a 

diagnosis of any mental incapacity or disability. Rather, it recites the referral from his intake 

counselor at Alta California Regional Center, the records Dr. Miller reviewed, and the dates and 

duration of Dr. Miller’s interviews with Plaintiff and his parents. Next, while a document 

submitted from the California Men’s Colony, dated in July 2019, references diagnoses of 

borderline personality disorder, Klinefelter syndrome, and major depressive disorder had been 

“confirmed,” it appears Plaintiff was receiving treatment for those conditions. Further, the 

document submitted from Salinas Valley State Prison titled “Mental Health Documentation” 

appears to concern a rules violation report or disciplinary report. It does reference depression, 

mood and impulse control difficulties, and usual or irrational beliefs, but also indicates the 

preparer’s belief that Plaintiff’s mental illness did not strongly influence his behavior, and that it 

his “mental illness may have contributed to his behavior.” Finally, Page 2 of an undated and 

unidentified “Social Assessment” merely records Plaintiff’s interactions with the interviewer and 

his mother who was present, as well as behaviors attributed to Plaintiff’s siblings, and appears to 

have been prepared more than a decade ago. 

In sum, the documentation provided by Plaintiff does not amount to substantial evidence 

of incompetence. Many of the documents are more than 10 years old and reference diagnoses 

made by others. See, e.g., Beckett v. Scalia, No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC), 2024 WL 

134577, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024) (“the Court will not order a competency determination 

on Plaintiff’s statements alone. Plaintiff must present ‘substantial evidence of incompetence’ but 

has failed to do so. If Plaintiff wishes the Court to make such a determination, he should submit 

evidence for the Court’s consideration. Something more than Plaintiff’s statements alone—for 

example, statements from treating physicians, medical records regarding diagnoses and 

medications, and/or sworn declarations of knowledgeable witnesses”). Plaintiff will be provided 

another opportunity to file a motion for the appointment of counsel and/or a motion for a 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

competency hearing. Should he elect to do so, Plaintiff should provide documentation not merely 

referencing past mental health diagnoses or conditions, but a current statement from a treating 

psychiatrist or psychologist concerning his present mental health diagnoses, accompanied by 

sworn declarations. Because this matter is set for a settlement conference in late January 2025, 

Plaintiff will be directed to file any such motion within 30 days to allow for its consideration prior 

to the settlement conference. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 45) filed October 31, 2024, is DENIED. Plaintiff 

may file a motion for the appointment of counsel and/or motion for competency hearing within 

30 days of the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 47 Filed 12/09/24 Page 7 of 7