Goodwin v. Gomez

Background

Patrik G. Goodwin, a state prisoner, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, where the opinion says he is incarcerated. The court had found that his complaint stated cognizable claims for excessive force and failure to protect and had ordered service on the defendants.

Goodwin moved for appointment of counsel. He cited “mental issues from having developed [A]lzheimer” and a low reading level. He submitted a medical report concerning the November 27, 2023 incident, notes from a December 15, 2023 optometry examination, and an October 9, 2023 “ADA/Effective Communication Patient Summary.”

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that a civil litigant generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel unless losing the case could result in the person’s loss of physical liberty. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may request counsel for an indigent litigant only in “exceptional circumstances,” a standard that depends on the difficulty of the legal issues and the litigant’s ability to present the case.

The court held that Goodwin’s asserted grounds did not establish exceptional circumstances at that time. It further found that his supporting papers did not establish that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or that the condition had progressed to a stage at which he could not prosecute the action. The discussion states that the request for counsel was “DENIED without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances.”

Guardian Ad Litem

The court separately considered whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) required appointment of a guardian ad litem. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect a minor or an incompetent person who is unrepresented in litigation. The court discussed Ninth Circuit authority concerning when a substantial question about a self-represented litigant’s competence requires further inquiry, as well as decisions from other circuits referring to verifiable evidence of incompetence.

The court found that Goodwin had submitted no evidence of incompetence. It stated that the documents concerned conditions from nearly two years earlier, that the communication summary showed a reading level of “02.0” but contained no information about mental issues, and that Goodwin had shown an ability to state his claims in an organized complaint. The court therefore found no substantial question about his competence, no duty to conduct further inquiry, and no basis for appointing a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c).

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states: “Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.” The order terminated Docket No. 20. The conclusion does not repeat the “without prejudice” language used in the discussion.