Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00290-3/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

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

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not 

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 

(9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 

298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary 

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

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

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

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. BRANDON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00290-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 22]

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 23 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff 

requests appointment of counsel because of his mental illness and medication he is at times unable to 

function. Although Plaintiff attaches medical documents which indicate that he is taking psychiatric 

medication to control his mental illness, it is apparent that if Plaintiff takes his medication his 

condition is under control. Indeed, Plaintiff’s documentation indicates that he has been under a court 

order for involuntary administered psychotropic medication. However, a review of the record reflects 

that Plaintiff is articulate and able to comply with court orders, as well as file pro se motions including 

a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 16.) Further, even if it assumed that plaintiff is not well 

versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, 

his case is not exceptional. Plaintiff alleges a First Amendment claim of retaliation against Defendant 

K. Brandon. The legal issues present in this action are not complex, and Plaintiff has thoroughly set 

forth his allegations in the complaint. However, at this early stage in the proceedings, the Court 

cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a review of 

the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00290-SAB Document 23 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 2