Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-17/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BARRIOS, HERNANDEZ, WHITE, and 

GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

(Doc. No. 88)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 

No. 88). Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his Third 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 9, 73). Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel because he has 

been “on and off suicidal and losing concentration at times” and because he believes he can 

prevail on the merits of his case with assistance from an attorney. (Doc. No. 88 at 1).

The Court previously denied Plaintiff appointment of counsel in its Orders dated February 

17, 2023 (Doc. No. 17) and December 19, 2023 (Doc. No. 58). The Court adopts herein the law 

governing appointment of counsel set forth in the Court’s February 17, 2023 and December 19, 

2023 Orders as through set forth at length herein. 

Plaintiff again has not met his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” 

Jones v. Chen, 2014 WL 12684497, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff’s claims of mental 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 89 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 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

2

health challenges alone are insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” standard 

required to justify appointment of counsel. Torres v. Jorrin, 2020 WL 5909529, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Oct. 6, 2020) (quoting Thompson v. Paramo, 2018 WL 4357993, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 

2018)); see also Jones v. Kuppinger, 2015 WL 5522290, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) 

(“Circumstances 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.”). Nor does Plaintiff submit 

evidence to demonstrate a nexus between his alleged mental health impairments and an inability 

to articulate his claim or litigate this case. West v. Dizon, No. 2014 WL 114659, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 9, 2014) (denying appointment of counsel when Plaintiff submitted no evidence of mental 

disability as to the “nature or effects” of the disability). Further, this case is in the discovery

stage, so it is difficult for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Reed v. Paramo, No. 18-cv361-JLS (LL), 2020 WL 2767358, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) (holding it was too early to 

determine plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits because fact discovery had not been 

completed). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 88) is DENIED.

Dated: October 16, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 89 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2