Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv973-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SIXTH MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Dkt. No. 222.]

vs.

A. NUNEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s sixth motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 1

No. 215.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel. 

Background

On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the

defendants for constitutional violations for an incident occurring on April 25, 2011. 

(Dkt. No. 1.) 

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed his first motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. 2

The Court notes that most recently, on January 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion

1

to appoint counsel which the Magistrate Judge denied on January 19, 2017. (Dkt. Nos.

215, 217.) 

In that motion, Plaintiff requested appointment of counsel due to the following:

2

(1) he cannot afford to hire a lawyer; (2) he cannot conduct an investigation or

discovery; (3) the case involves complex legal issues;(4) he is not sufficiently trained

in legal matters; (5) his access to the law library and legal resources is limited; and (6)

he has clubbed fingers that make extensive writing burdensome.

- 1 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

No. 17.) On November 5, 2013, Magistrate Judge Skomal denied Plaintiff’s motion

to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 21.) Subsequently, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b). (Dkt. Nos. 12, 18.) A report and recommendation granting

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed; however, due to a recent Ninth Circuit

decision, the Court declined to adopt the report and recommendation and denied 3

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 45.) 

Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment on June 6, 2014. (Dkt.

No. 47, 48.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 21, 2014. (Dkt. No. 50.) A reply was

filed on July 29, 2014 and July 31, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 51, 52.) On August 26, 2014,

Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal issued a report and recommendation granting all

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and also granted

Defendant Wilborn’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 53.) 

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed another motion to appoint counsel which

the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. Nos. 56, 62.) In that

motion, Plaintiff sought appointment of counsel in order to conduct discovery and an

evidentiary hearing and claimed to have a disability under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) making it hard for him to read, write, and understand

materials regarding his case. (Dkt. No. 56.) The Court concluded that “[b]esides

general allegations that he has a disability under the ADA, Plaintiff does not provide

any evidence to support his disability or the nature of his disability” and his complaint

contained facts sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. §§

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit overruled Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 3

1108 (9th Cir. 2003) concerning the proper procedural device to raise the issue of

administrative exhaustion. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 2014). 

The court in Albino held that exhaustion should be raised either through 1) a motion

to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), in the rare occasion that failure to exhaust is clear

on the face of the complaint; or 2) a motion for summary judgment. Id. An

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, as held in Wyatt, is no longer the procedural method

to raise the exhaustion issue. Id. 

- 2 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (Dkt. No. 62 at 3.) The Court concluded that to date,

“Plaintiff has prosecuted this case without delay and has been able to articulate relief

in his pleadings.” (Id.) 

Subsequently, on January 6, 2015, the Court adopted in part and declined to

adopt in part the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The Court denied

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff leave to file a first

amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 66.) On March 16, 2015, after seeking leave to amend,

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 74.) Defendants then filed another

motion to dismiss and after briefing and a report and recommendation, on September

16, 2015, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and granted Defendant

Wilborn’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 102.) 

On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed another motion to appoint counsel which

the Magistrate Judge denied. (Dkt. Nos. 114, 116.) Plaintiff’s arguments were no

different than his prior requests for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he

cannot afford to hire a lawyer (ECF No. 114 ¶ 1), he cannot conduct an investigation

and discovery (id. at ¶ 2), the case involves complex legal issues (id. at ¶ 3), and his

access to the law library and legal resources is limited (id. at ¶7). He made these exact

arguments in his first request for appointment of counsel, which this Court denied on

November 5, 2013. The Magistrate Judge noted that an examination of the docket

indicates that Plaintiff has participated in the discovery process, the meet and confer

process, and has filed over nineteen documents with the Court citing Dkt. Nos. 17, 23,

31, 33, 36, 38, 50, 56, 58, 61, 63, 72, 74, 80, 83, 88, 90, 94, 100. (Dkt. No. 116 at 4.)

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed yet another motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt.

No. 177.) The Magistrate Judge denied his fourth motion to appoint counsel on August

15, 2016 as the reasons for appointment of counsel were no different than his previous

motions. (Dkt. No. 182.) As such, the court found “that neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel.” (Id. at 3-4.) 

On January 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed his fifth motion to appoint counsel. He

- 3 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

declares that he has a disability covered under Title II of the ADA which makes it

difficult to him to read, write and understand materials and writes “Schizoaffective

Disorder.” (Dkt. No. 215 at 6.) He also states that his fingers are clubbed and that he

does not fully understand the court’s most recent report and recommendation filed on

November 9, 2016. (Id.) On January 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge overruled

Plaintiff’s objection to its prior order denying his request for counsel, (Dkt. No. 192),

and denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel concluding that Plaitniff has not

presented any new facts justifying such extraordinary relief. (Dkt. No. 216 at 5.) 

The instant motion istitled, “Inmate Requestfor Assistance Fromthe Court” and

Plaintiff essentially seeks appointment of counsel due to his claimed disability of

“Mental Disorder: Schizoaffective Disorder.” (Dkt. No. 222 at 2.)

Discussion

“[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v.

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

omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, district courts are granted discretion

to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success on the merits and the ability

of the plaintiff to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved.' Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be viewed

together before reaching a decision.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir.

1990).

Here, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s numerous requests for appointment of

counsel presenting the same arguments. In this motion, Plaintiff attaches an “Inmate

Request for Assistance From the Court”, a form to advise the court that the inmate is

claiming a disabilityand requesting reasonable accommodations under the ADA. (Dkt.

No. 222.) The form requires a CDCR employee to assist an inmate in completing the

- 4 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

form. (Id.) Dr. Jeffrey Prestler, a forensic psychologist, assisted Plaintiff by listing his

claimed disability as: “Mental Disorder: Schizoaffective Disorder.” (Id. at 2.) The

requested accommodation for his alleged disability is “Assignment of Counsel.” (Id.)

The Court construes the "Inmate Request for Assistance From the Court” as a motion

for appointment of counsel. 

In Allen v. Calderon, the Ninth Circuit held 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)

(addressing Rule 17(c) whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed, not whether

counsel should be appointed for the underlying proceeding). The NinthCircuit reversed

the district court’s dismissal of petitioner’s habeas petition for failing to prosecute. In

Allen, the pro se petitioner as well as another inmate submitted a sworn declaration that

the petitioner was mentally ill and did not understand the court’s instructions. Id. at

1152. Allen also included a letter fromthe prison psychiatrist whose care he was under

stating his diagnosis as “Chronic Undifferentiated Schizophrenia” and that the

petitioner was taking psychotropic medications. Id. at 1152-53. The court held that

the district court erred in dismissing the petition without evaluating his claims of

incompetence concluding that when substantial evidence ofincompetence is presented,

a pro se party is entitled to a competency determination. 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, Civil 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 § 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 that his

ability to articulate his claim was not affected by his mental disorder. Id. The plaintiff

had successfully survived screening, successfully opposed Defendants’ motion to

- 5 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

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 functions 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. 

Despite filing an “Inmate Request for Assistance from the Court” asserting a

mental impairment of “Schizoaffective Disorder” signed by a forensic psychologist,

Plaintiff has not submitted any medical records to support his diagnosis and has not

submitted any documents, such as a treating physician’s notes, to demonstrate the

effects of his diagnosis on the prosecution of this case. See West v. Dizon, No.

12cv1293 DAD P, 2014 WL 114659, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) (denying

appointment of counsel because plaintiffmerely alleged a mental disability without any

evidence detailing its nature or effects which inmate has surmounted with the help of

other inmates). In fact, to date, Plaintiff has successfully litigated this case. He has

survived sua sponte screening, survived a motion for summary judgment on the issue

of exhaustion by filing not only an opposition but also an objection to the report and

recommendation. He has also responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss along with

filing an objection to the report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s filings are replete with facts, supporting law and supporting documentation. 

As noted by the Magistrate Judge in the most recent order denying his motion to

appoint counsel, Plaintiff “has filed over fourty (sic) motions or objections with the

Court, including a response to a motion for terminating sanctions. (See e.g., ECF Nos.

17, 23, 31, 33, 36, 38, 50, 56, 58, 61, 63, 72, 74, 80, 83, 88, 90, 94, 100, 105, 114, 118,

129, 135, 140, 141, 155, 157, 169, 173, 177, 180, 185, 188, 192, 195, 198, 200, 212,

215.)”. (Dkt. No. 216 at 5.) 

Plaintiff’s alleged mental disability has not affected his ability to articulate his

arguments and prosecute the case. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not

demonstrated “exceptional circumstances” to warrant appointment of counsel, and the

- 6 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for assignment of counsel. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 7 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 223 Filed 02/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7