Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01126/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01126-3/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 

16CV1126-LAB(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 

DARREN VINCENT FORD, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

J. LEWIS, DANIEL PARAMO, AND H. 

GREENWALD, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV1126-LAB(BLM) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

AND FOURTH MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[ECF Nos. 18 and 19] 

 

On July 15 and 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed two requests for appointment of counsel that were 

accepted by the Court on discrepancy on July 27, 2016. ECF Nos. 16-19.1 Plaintiff filed the 

motions requesting the appointment of counsel to assist him because he is (1) entitled to 

protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) due to his hearing problems and a 

mental disability which makes it difficult for him “to understand the legal process or legal 

materials,” (2) indigent, and (3) unable to find an attorney willing to assist him. ECF No. 18 at 

1 and 19 at 1. 

/// 

                                                      

1 In his motion, Plaintiff also asserts that he has been moved to a new facility and provides the 

Court with his updated address. ECF No. 18 at 1. 

Case 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 08/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

16CV1126-LAB(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

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)2, 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, 

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

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

/// 

                                                      

2 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 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 08/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

16CV1126-LAB(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

C. Discussion 

The Court has reviewed the instant motions, the complaint (ECF No. 1), a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), a previous motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 

3), a consent to magistrate jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 5 and 6), a notice of change of address (ECF 

No. 12), and a second motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 14). 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 Nos. 10 and 15] and Plaintiff’s current requests do not provide any new facts justifying such 

an extraordinary remedy. ECF Nos. 18-19. Further, Plaintiff does not demonstrate 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 because he is 

incompetent due to a mental disability. ECF No. 19 at 1. Plaintiff merely states that he suffers 

from a mental disability that makes it difficult to understand the legal process and legal materials. 

Id. However, he does not allege that he currently is suffering from a mental illness that prevents 

him from understanding and responding to court orders or provide any evidence of such 

incompetency. Id. Additionally, the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s filings in this matter does not 

support such a position. Furthermore, while Plaintiff mentions that he suffers from a hearing 

disability, he provides no further details such as how his hearing is compromised or how this 

disability impacts his ability to represent himself. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds the pleadings 

filed to date do not establish that Plaintiff currently is incompetent and requires the appointment 

of counsel on this basis. 

Because Plaintiff has not alleged the requisite “exceptional circumstances” at this time or 

Case 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 08/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

16CV1126-LAB(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

provided any evidence in support of the appointment of counsel for a competency hearing, the 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 8/3/2016 

Case 3:16-cv-01126-LAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 08/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4