(PC) Bedford v. CDCR
1:24-cv-01056
E.D. Cal.Dec 4, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Justin Romell Bredford is incarcerated, proceeding pro se, and has filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and other defendants.
- Plaintiff is classified as a mental health inmate, is indigent, and proceeds in forma pauperis.
- Plaintiff requested appointment of counsel, citing limited legal resources and inability to comprehend the proceedings.
- The court reviewed the request under the standard for seeking appointment of counsel in civil cases brought by inmates.
- The court noted that it encounters similar claims regularly and considered Plaintiff's ability to litigate thus far.
- The motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice, indicating Plaintiff may refile if circumstances change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of counsel for indigent inmate | Bredford: Needs counsel due to mental health, indigence, and legal limitations | Not addressed | Denied; no exceptional circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1997) (discusses the lack of constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 plaintiffs and sets the exceptional circumstances standard)
- Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (determines that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) does not authorize compulsory appointment of counsel)
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (addresses standard for appointment of counsel and that exceptionality is required, not just benefit to plaintiff)