Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00060/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00060-0/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 

18cv60-BAS (BLM) 

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 

DUWAYNE JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

F. AVILES, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18CV60-BAS (BLM) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[ECF NO. 21] 

 On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a motion for appointment of counsel that was 

accepted by the Court on discrepancy on October 17 2018. See ECF Nos. 20 and 21. Plaintiff 

argues that counsel should be appointed in part because he “has a serious mental illness and a 

high risk of decompensation, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, which may result into 

placement into a mental health hospital at times.” ECF No. 21 at 2. In support of his claim, 

Plaintiff attaches records from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Office 

of Administrative Hearings for the State of California. Id. at 11-23. Plaintiff further argues that 

counsel should be appointed because (1) his case is complex, (2) his case requires medical 

experts, (3) the parties have demanded a jury trial, (4) discovery will be required, (5) the parties 

will have differing positions, (6) he only has a junior high school education and no legal 

Case 3:18-cv-00060-BAS-BLM Document 24 Filed 10/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

18cv60-BAS (BLM) 

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

education, (7) he has limited access to legal materials due to his placement in the Administrative 

Segregation Unit and no ability to investigate his case, and (8) he is indigent. Id. at 1-4 and 6-

8. 

A. Appointment of Counsel 

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case unless an 

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are granted 

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 

v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). A finding of exceptional 

circumstances demands 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.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986)). 

B. Competency 

In Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005)1, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals explained that a district court must hold a competency hearing “when substantial 

evidence of incompetence is presented.” Allen, 408 F.3d at 1153. If a competency hearing is 

warranted, the Court may appoint counsel for the limited purpose of representing the petitioner 

at the competency hearing. Id. (citing Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 

(“[i]f an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an attorney to represent a 

petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A”)). In determining 

whether Petitioner has presented “substantial evidence of incompetence,” the Court may 

consider any appropriate evidence including sworn declarations by Petitioner or other inmates, 

                                                      

1 While Allen was written in the context of a habeas case, it has been applied in cases under 

section 1983. See Tran v. Gore, 2013 WL 692089, *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013) (citing McElroy 

v. Cox, 2009 WL 4895360, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009) (a § 1983 case where “Judge Battaglia 

applied Allen and found that there was no nexus between Plaintiff's mental disorder and his 

ability to articulate his claims.”). 

Case 3:18-cv-00060-BAS-BLM Document 24 Filed 10/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

18cv60-BAS (BLM) 

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

sworn declarations or letters from treating or prison psychiatrists or psychologists, and relevant 

medical records. Allen, 408 F.3d at 1151-53. 

C. Discussion 

The Court has reviewed all of the documents filed by Plaintiff in this case including the 

instant motion, the complaint (ECF No. 1), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), 

a previous motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4), the First Amended Complaint 

(ECF No. 6), a notice of change of address (ECF No. 9), a motion for a pre-trial conference of 

settlement (ECF No. 17), and a motion for order compelling discovery (ECF No. 23). From the 

Court’s review of these documents, it is clear that Plaintiff is able to articulate the claims of his 

case without legal assistance. Under such circumstances, a district court does not abuse its 

discretion in denying a state prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel as it is simply not 

warranted by the interests of justice. See LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(affirming district court’s denial of request for appointment of counsel where pleadings 

demonstrated petitioner had “a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present 

forcefully and coherently his contentions”). The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for 

counsel [see ECF No. 5] and Plaintiff’s current request does not provide any new facts justifying 

such an extraordinary remedy. See ECF No. 21. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits such that his case should be classified as an “exceptional 

circumstance[].” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103; see also Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 

It is unclear if Plaintiff is requesting the appointment of counsel on the ground that he is 

incompetent due to a mental illness or disability. While Plaintiff has provided evidence of a 

psychiatric condition, the evidence establishes the condition is being controlled with medication 

(at least through August 15, 2019). See ECF No. 21 at 11-21. Plaintiff has not submitted the 

required “substantial evidence” of incompetence to warrant a competency hearing. Plaintiff 

does not allege that the mental illness he suffers from prevents him from understanding and 

responding to court orders. Additionally, the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s filings in this matter 

does not support such a position. Accordingly, the Court finds there is no basis for a competency 

hearing and therefore no need to appoint counsel to participate in that hearing. 

Case 3:18-cv-00060-BAS-BLM Document 24 Filed 10/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

18cv60-BAS (BLM) 

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

Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances,” the Court 

DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/18/2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00060-BAS-BLM Document 24 Filed 10/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4