Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468-12/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

MATTHEW H. BECKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND 

FOR COMPETENCY DETERMINATION

(Docs. 42 & 43) 

Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez and 

failure to protect/failure to intervene claims against Defendant Hackworth, and Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Scalia, 

Madrigal, Hernandez, Hackworth, and Hurtado. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed two motions on February 14, 2024. (Docs. 42 & 43.) More specifically, in a 

document titled “Motion – New Circumstances, 3rd request for appointment of Counsel In either 

full or Partial Capacities and Motion – Court Clearly Certify Competency of Plaintiff,” Plaintiff 

asks the Court to “certify [him] as ‘competent to move forward with litigation of these matters.’” 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 51 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 6
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

(Doc. 42 at 1-2.) He states without “an answer of clearance of competency,” “[i]t would do ill 

justice to these cases to move forward in pursuit of justice.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends the 

Court failed to address “and [to] either clearly state” his competency, appoint a forensic team 

“for said clearance” and notes the Court refused his second request for appointed counsel. (Id.) 

Plaintiff states he is currently being held under “Cal Pen Code 1026,” and that this Court “cannot 

rightly move forward with this case without addressing the issue.” (Id.) Plaintiff objects to the 

Court’s “failure to recognize [his] current situation.” (Id.) 

In a second document filed February 14, 2024, titled “Motion: 3-rd Request For 

Appointment of Counsel” (Doc. 43), Plaintiff states he is unable “to investigate facts” and that 

this case “requires extensive documentationary [sic] disc, depositions of prison officials as well 

as access to witnesses,” which he cannot do. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that as a patient of the 

Department of State Hospitals he “only allowed to possess a meager 6” (inches) of paperwork, 

including, but not limited to legal work, personal letters, mail and therapy related paperwork.” 

(Id.) Further, Plaintiff may not possess crime scene photos. (Id.) Because he is limited to “1 -free 

mail per week and may not excess more than a 1/4” (in) inside of a 16” x 4” standard envelope,” 

he is prevented from “being able to send in litigation for his & multiple other cases in this district 

court and outside of it.” (Id.) He maintains these restrictions have “led to time violations on 

several occasions.” (Id.) Next, Plaintiff contends that “due to strong resistance by the” Attorney 

General’s Office he expects there will be conflicting evidence “leading to the need for cross 

examination which will be important to these cases.” (Id.; see id. at 6.) Plaintiff contends his 

indigency “should be considered as the circumstances & factors present ‘special difficulties’” for 

him. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff experiences great stress that is “bad for [his] existing ailments,” 

including hypertension, congestive heart failure, a heart murmur, and osteoporosis that makes 

writing painful and difficult. (Id.)

Next, Plaintiff states he is “not highly educated in school or law,” does not know how to 

obtain discovery or answers to deposition questions. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff maintains he has 

shown the Court “on several occasions” that he has developmental learning disability and a 

severe mental health diagnosis, but the Court ignored his request for a competency hearing “or to 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 51 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 6
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

give competency consideration of any kind.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff contends he has no idea how to 

proceed, particularly regarding discovery. (Id. at 4-5.) He asserts he has tried to “obtain legal 

books and materials” but the hospital infringes upon his rights to access the courts. (Id. at 5.) 

Plaintiff states he has “no idea what the de novo hearing the Court spoke of in (Doc. 34) ... even 

has to do with” his case. (Id.)

Plaintiff separately asserts this is case is complex, the legal issues are “too hard to re live 

and too complex to handle.” (Id.) Factual issues may require expert witnesses regarding conduct 

of the officers, and medical and mental health issues. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts it “may serve justice 

to combine” the cases he has filed in this district because they “have the same pre-existing 

factors leading up to the complains and fall under the same rights violations.” (Id. at 5-6.) 

Plaintiff contends “the Court is wrong in saying that this case(s) are factually simple & legally 

straightforward.” (Id. at 6.) He asserts his case is worthy of the appointment of counsel (id. at 6-

7) and that cases involving staff assaults in Kings County are especially difficult “since the facts 

are almost always contended and there are seldom neutral witnesses.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff 

maintains the skills required to litigation this case are beyond his abilities. (Id.) Alternatively, 

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel for the “limited purpose” of assisting him with 

discovery “and Trial Proceedings.” (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff states he has been found to be “’legally 

insane’ under Penal Code 1026” and that to proceed without a competency declaration from this 

Court “would be a failure of fair and equitable justice.” (Id.) Plaintiff has sought the assistance of 

counsel from eight separate attorneys without success and does not possess the financial ability 

to hire an attorney. (Id. at 8-9.) 

II. DISCUSSION

As Plaintiff was advised on November 30, 2023, a “’party proceeding pro se in a civil 

lawsuit is entitled to a competency determination when substantial evidence of incompetence is 

presented.’” (Doc. 33 at 3:22-24, citing Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

Unlike the plaintiff is Allen, Plaintiff offers only his own statements concerning his incapacity. In 

Allen, the plaintiff’s allegations regarding competency were additionally supported by another 

inmate’s sworn declaration and a letter from Allen’s psychiatrist with details concerning his 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 51 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 6
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

schizophrenia diagnosis and medications. Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153. Here, 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.

Moreover, the Court notes it has considered Plaintiff’s previous requests for the 

appointment of counsel pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Most 

recently, the Court considered numerous factors that Plaintiff relies on in his instant requests: pro 

se status, incarceration, indigency, a lack of legal education, limited access to the law library, and 

the fact an attorney is better equipped to litigate this type of case. (See Doc. 33 at 4-5.) Nothing 

presented by Plaintiff’s most recent requests changes the Court’s analysis regarding those issues

and the Court will not repeat the analysis here. 

To the extent Plaintiff contends certain restrictions imposed by his hospitalization—

regarding page limitations, photographs, postage, paper and envelope size or availability—

support his request, those restrictions appear to be common to all patients at the facility and do 

not amount to an exceptional circumstance. See, e.g., Suarez v. Clark, No. 1:22-cv-00160-JLTSAB (PC), 2024 WL 477982, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024) (“the Court has ‘repeatedly’ held 

incarceration’s challenges on litigation do not constitute an exceptional circumstance. [] If 

Plaintiff's incarceration was an exceptional circumstance, any prisoner would be entitled to 

counsel”). 

As concerns Plaintiff’s physical and mental disabilities, those circumstances are not 

typically 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”); Jones v. Stieferman, 2007 

WL 4219169, at *1 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2007) (“being disabled and requiring use of a wheelchair 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 51 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 6
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

to assist with mobility is not the type of exceptional circumstances which allow the court to 

request voluntary assistance of counsel”); see also Fletcher v. Quin, No. 15CV2156-GPC (NLS), 

2018 WL 840174, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018) (impairment must be “an incapacitating mental 

disability” and be supported by “substantial evidence of incompetence”). And, as noted above, 

Plaintiff fails to show substantial evidence of his incompetence. 

To the extent Plaintiff declares this case involves medical issues that will require expert 

testimony, nor is this an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. Brooks 

v. Smith, No. 2:22-CV-0062-DMC-P, 2022 WL 17629298, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2022) 

(“Plaintiff’s stated circumstances such as the lack of knowledge, legal rules and procedure, or the 

potential necessity of an expert witness are common to almost all prisoners and, as such not 

extraordinary”); Honeycutt v. Snider, No. 3:11-cv-00393-RJC (WGC), 2011 WL 6301429, at *1 

(D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2011) (“The appointment of experts in deliberate indifference cases is rare, and 

such requests should be granted sparingly, particularly given the large volume of cases in which 

indigent prisoners allege claims under the Eighth Amendment related to medical care, and the 

substantial expense defendants may have to bear if courts were to appoint experts in such cases”). 

Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised that Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is not a means to 

avoid the in forma pauperis statute and its prohibition against using public funds to pay for the 

expenses of witnesses. Manriquez v. Huchins, No. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC, 2012 WL 

5880431, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012). Nor does Rule 706 contemplate court appointment 

and compensation of an expert witness as an advocate for Plaintiff. Faletogo v. Moya, No. 

12cv631 GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 524037, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2013). The appointment of an 

expert witness under Rule 706 is intended to benefit the trier of fact, not a particular litigant. 

Faletogo, 2013 WL 524037, at *2. See Bontemps v. Lee, No. 2:12-cv-0771 KJN P, 2013 WL 

417790, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013); Honeycutt, 2011 WL 6301429, at *1; Gamez v. 

Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL 2228427, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2010).

Moreover, while the Court appreciates Plaintiff's efforts to secure counsel, his inability to 

find counsel is not “a proper factor for the Court to consider in determining whether to request 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 51 Filed 03/29/24 Page 5 of 6
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

counsel.” Howard v. Hedgpeth, No. 1:08-cv-00859-RTB-PCL, 2010 WL 1641087, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Apr. 20, 2010).

In sum, Plaintiff faces challenges and circumstances faced by most pro se prisoner or civil 

detainee litigants. As the Court has previously held, those circumstances are not exceptional and 

do not warrant the appointment of counsel. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s February 14, 

2024 requests for a competency determination and for the appointment of counsel (Docs. 42 & 43) 

are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 51 Filed 03/29/24 Page 6 of 6