Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276-5/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

KELLY B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHUI, FNU YAGUEZI; KHUONG 

PHUI,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00276-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

(Doc. Nos. 26, 27)

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel, filed on November 

15, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 26, 27). An October 21, 2021, the Court previously denied Plaintiff’s 

earlier motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. Nos. 21, 23). 

Noting he inadvertently failed to include a proof of service page on his motion and has 

had limited access to the law library, Plaintiff again seeks appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 26 

at 1). But this time Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel only for the discovery process, noting 

that defense counsel is attempting to coordinate his deposition. (Id. at 1-3). Plaintiff further 

states that he has many inmate witnesses who will be witnesses concerning his illness. (Id. at 2). 

Plaintiff re-asserts that he has made numerous attempts to secure counsel to no avail. (Id. at 3). 

The second motion reiterates Plaintiff’s arguments in the first motion, asserting that Plaintiff 

believes the case is one of “life and death.” (See Doc. Nos. 26 at, 27 at 2).

The Court’s October 21, 2021 order recites the operative standard of review and the Court 

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 02/10/22 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

incorporates by reference the applicable law in the instant order. (Doc. No. 23). As stated in the 

former order, while the Court is sensitive to Plaintiff’s incarcerated status, the situation he faces 

with lack of knowledge about procedural rules, limited access to the law library, and possible 

inmate witnesses are faced by all inmate plaintiffs. (Id. at 2-3). Further, the Court notes 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) concerns an Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to his medical condition. (See generally Doc. No. 10 at 3-4) (alleging Plaintiff had a 

blood infection and was septic, ultimately resulting heart surgery and valve replacement). 

Plaintiff has shown the ability to litigate the case and this case remains at the early stages of 

litigation. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met the “exceptional 

circumstances” necessary for appointment of counsel in this civil case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel are DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 26, 27). 

Dated: February 9, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 2