(PC) Taylor v. Teragawa
2:21-cv-01330
E.D. Cal.Nov 17, 2021Background
- Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force; he paid the filing fee.
- Defendant is S. Teragawa; defendant’s counsel waived service of process.
- Plaintiff submitted a state-court order showing suspension of criminal proceedings for involuntary medication under California Penal Code § 1370 and was transferred to a psychiatric inpatient program.
- Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel, asserting that involuntary medication might impair his ability to litigate.
- The court found the complaint to be articulate, well‑written, and supported by exhibits, and observed that appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants requires “exceptional circumstances.”
- The court denied the motion for appointed counsel without prejudice, stayed the action for 90 days to allow plaintiff to assess the impact of involuntary medication, ordered a status report before the stay expires, and relieved defendant of the obligation to file a responsive pleading until further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) | Involuntary medication will impair Taylor’s ability to litigate; counsel is necessary | No exceptional circumstances justify appointment; Taylor can proceed pro se | Denied without prejudice — Taylor failed to show exceptional circumstances under Palmer factors |
| Whether to stay the case and delay defendant’s responsive pleading because of involuntary medication | A temporary stay will allow Taylor to determine whether medication impairs litigation | (Not argued in opinion) | Case stayed 90 days; defendant relieved of obligation to respond until further order |
Key Cases Cited
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (district courts lack authority to require counsel for indigent civil litigants)
- Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (court may request voluntary counsel in exceptional circumstances)
- Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (discusses appointment-of-counsel standard for prisoners)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (exceptional-circumstances test requires considering likelihood of success and ability to articulate claims)