Gipbsin v. Kernan, et al

Filing 120

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/20/15 denying 115 Motion to Appoint Counsel and denying 119 Motion for a settlement conference. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:12-cv-0556 GEB DAD P

ORDER

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested
appointment of counsel.

19

As the court recently advised plaintiff, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that

20

district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases.

21

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional

22

circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

24

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

26

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

27

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

28

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances
1

1

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

2

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

3

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

4

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a settlement conference. Plaintiff is advised that,

5

unless both parties in this case request this court to conduct a settlement conference, this court

6

will not order a court-supervised settlement conference until after it has ruled on any forthcoming

7

dispositive motions.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

9

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 115) is denied; and

10
11

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (Doc. No. 119) is denied.
Dated: August 20, 2015

12
13
14
15

DAD:9
gipb0556.31scd

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2