1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-KES-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 13 v. COUNSEL

14 HERNANDEZ, et al., (Doc. No. 131)

15 Defendants. ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S PRETRIAL STATEMENT AS PREMATURE 16 (Doc. No. 132) 17

18 19 On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Pretrial Statement. (Doc. No. 132). The same day, 20 Plaintiff also filed his sixth Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. No. 131). Plaintiff, a 21 state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his Third Amended Complaint. 22 (Doc. Nos. 9, 73). Insofar as the Court is able to discern, Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, 23 citing issues related to prison conditions, mental health, and past trauma. (Doc. No. 131). 24 Specifically, Plaintiff states he is unable to prepare certain filings because prison staff repeatedly 25 search his cell and confiscate his property. (Id.). Plaintiff also expresses fear of confronting his 26 “abusers” regarding past “sexual assaults” and a generalized “fear [of] further retaliation.” (Id.). 27 The Court has previously denied Plaintiff appointment of counsel in its Orders dated 28 February 17, 2023 (Doc. No. 17), December 19, 2023 (Doc. No. 58), October 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 1 89), October 22, 2024 (Doc. No. 94), and December 2, 2024 (Doc. No. 107). The Court adopts 2 herein the law governing appointment of counsel, set forth in the Court’s February 17, 2023, 3 December 19, 2023, Orders, as though fully set forth herein. 4 Plaintiff again fails meet his “burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.” Jones 5 v. Chen,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014). Plaintiff’s claims of mental health 6 challenges alone are insufficient to satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” standard required to 7 justify appointment of counsel. Torres v. Jorrin,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 8 2020) (quoting Thompson v. Paramo,

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018)); see 9 also Jones v. Kuppinger,

, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“Circumstances 10 common to most prisoners, such as a deficient general education, lack of knowledge of the law, 11 mental illness and disability, do not in themselves establish exceptional circumstances warranting 12 appointment of voluntary civil counsel.”). Plaintiff provides no explanation as to how his mental 13 health issues and past trauma have impeded his ability to articulate his claim or litigate this case. 14 West v. Dizon, No.

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) (denying appointment of 15 counsel when Plaintiff submitted no evidence of mental disability as to the “nature or effects” of 16 the disability). Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment and various motions, 17 demonstrating his ability to prosecute this action to date. 18 Plaintiff’s general complaints concerning his confinement do not warrant appointment of 19 counsel. See Siglar v. Hopkins,

, 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of 20 counsel because the plaintiff’s “circumstances were not exceptionally different from the majority 21 of the challenges faced by pro se litigants.”). Nor do Plaintiff’s general and conclusory 22 allegations of fear and property confiscations justify appointment of counsel. See Kirkham v. City 23 of Bellingham,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 27, 2025) (denying motion for 24 appointment of counsel on the grounds that his allegations concerning, inter alia, evidence 25 tampering and fears for safety failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting 26 appointment of counsel). 27 Plaintiff’s Pretrial Statement was prematurely filed. After the Court rules on any 28 dipositive motions, the Court generally issues a second scheduling order setting expert deadlines 1 | and deadlines to file pretrial statements. Both Plaintiff and Defendants have dispositive motions 2 || pending before the Court. See Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 82) and 3 | Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 125). Thus, Plaintiffs pretrial statement 4 | will be stricken as prematurely filed. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiffs sixth Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 131) is DENIED. 7 2. The Clerk shall strike Plaintiff's Pretrial Statement (Doc. No. 132) from the docket. 8 ” | Dated: __April 22, 2025 Mile. □□□ foareA Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28