Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01122-8/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 STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S FILING 

OF OCTOBER 3, 2024

(Doc. 37)

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claims against Defendant Burnes, Flores, and Sanchez.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and Staying Case for 

90 Days on July 3, 2024. (Doc. 24.) That order stayed this action for 90 days and expressly stated: 

“No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the stay.” (Id. at 2.) 

On July 19, 2024, this Court issued its Order Striking Plaintiff’s Filing of July 15, 2024, 

advising Plaintiff his motion for the appointment of counsel “will be stricken because the action 

was stayed as of July 3, 2024, and the Court ordered no motions could be filed during that stay. 

Plaintiff may refile his motion after the Court has ordered the stay lifted.” (Doc. 29.) And the 

Court similarly issued its Order Striking Plaintiff’s Filing of July 23, 2024. (Doc. 33.) 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 39 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 4
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

On September 11, 2024, the Court issued its Order Setting Settlement Conference and 

Settlement Conference Procedures. (Doc. 35.) Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto will conduct a 

settlement conference in this action via Zoom videoconferencing on November 5, 2024, at 10:30 

a.m.

On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed document titled “Notice Hereby Request for 

Appointment of Counsel Due to ‘Mentally Incompetent/Mentally Unstabled’ ‘Exceptional 

Circumstances’ [Prevents] Plaintiff from Understanding Courts & CDCR Orders Which Would 

Only Rise to the Manifest Injustice Standard; Notice Hereby Declare to Know How Do Plaintiff 

File [Similar] Motion to Disqualify[] Judge Who Stayed My Motions Lying About the Time of

Filing the Stay.” (Doc. 37.)

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is again advised that this Court’s July 3, 2024, order stayed this action for 90 

days and expressly stated: “No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the stay.” 

(See Doc. 24 at 2.) Any motion filed after July 3, 2024, and before a stay of these proceedings is 

lifted, will not be considered. Plaintiff’s motion filed October 3, 2024,1 will not be considered and 

will be stricken. 

Despite the fact the motion will not be considered, the Court provides Plaintiff with the 

following information and applicable legal standards, presuming he will wish to present his 

motion once the settlement conference has been conducted and the stay of these proceedings has

been lifted. 

Plaintiff is advised that mental illness or disability do not generally amount to exceptional 

circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See 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 

1 The motion not signed or dated. See Local Rule 131 (“All pleadings and non-evidentiary documents shall be signed 

by the individual attorney for the party presenting them, or by the party involved if that party is appearing in propria 

persona”). 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 39 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 4
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

*2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018) (impairment must be “an incapacitating mental disability” and be 

supported by “substantial evidence of incompetence”).

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to seek a competency determination in these proceedings, he 

is advised that “[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). Exactly what constitutes “substantial evidence” is not 

specifically denoted in Allen; however, courts may consider evidence such as sworn declarations 

and letters from treating psychiatrists. Id. at 1151–53. 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. Id. at 1153. 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). 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 “there is no nexus between his mental disorder and his ability to articulate his claims.” Id. 

at *3. The court found the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claim was not affected by his mental 

disorder. Id. The plaintiff’s complaint passed the court’s screening, he successfully opposed 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss by presenting legal arguments with documentary support, and his 

motions for appointment of counsel were drafted with clarity and proper arguments. Id. Medical 

records also showed that he functioned well when properly medicated. Id. The court denied 

Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel because he had not shown that the interests of justice or 

exceptional circumstances warranted appointment of counsel. Id.

Vague or unsupported allegations of mental illness or learning disabilities do not amount 

to substantial evidence of incompetence. See Yocom v. Cnty. of Tulare, No. 1:21-cv-00849-HBK 

(PC), 2023 WL 5723828, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2023); Meeks v. Nunez, No. 13cv973-GPC 

(BGS), 2017 WL 476425, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017). Thus, Plaintiff is advised that his own 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 39 Filed 10/04/24 Page 3 of 4
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

descriptions of his mental disabilities are insufficient—Plaintiff is not a physician or psychiatrist. 

As noted above, a letter from a treating psychiatrist including a diagnosis and other supporting 

information, such as sworn declarations, are required. 

Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff asks how to disqualify the undersigned from this action. 

However, the Court does not provide legal advice to litigants. See, e.g., Mansour v. Luken, No. 

1:22-cv-01054-JLT-EPG (PC), 2023 WL 2992979, at *1, n.1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023); Mills v. 

Jones, No. 1:23-cv-00134-ADA-EPG (PC), 2023 WL 2645667, at *2, n.1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 

2023); Foust v. Kuku-Ojo, No. 2:16-cv-2731 WBS AC P, 2020 WL 2112114, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

May 4, 2020). Plaintiff is referred to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the information he 

seeks. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The stay of these proceedings is extended to November 8, 2024, unless otherwise 

ordered by the Court. No pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the 

stay; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion filed October 3, 2024 (Doc. 37) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff may 

resubmit a motion concerning the appointment of counsel and/or a competency 

determination after the settlement conference of November 5, 2024, has been 

conducted and after the stay of these proceedings has been lifted by Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 39 Filed 10/04/24 Page 4 of 4