Dennis v. Kerman et al

Filing 116

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/25/21 DENYING 115 Motion for a pretrial conference and appointment of counsel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW DENNIS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0542 JAM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983, has filed a motion for an initial pretrial conference. ECF No. 115. The motion is largely

19

a summary of plaintiff’s various filings and his allegations against the defendants, particularly

20

defendant Mays. Id.

21

Plaintiff was previously advised that because he is a prisoner proceeding pro se, this case

22

will not be set for a Rule 16 conference. ECF No. 98 at 3. To the extent plaintiff may be seeking

23

a conference to discuss preparations for trial, it has not yet been determined that this case will

24

proceed to trial and the motion is therefore premature.

25

Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel on the ground that it will benefit both the

26

court and plaintiff. ECF No. 115 at 14. While it may be true that appointment of counsel would

27

make pursuing this case easier for plaintiff, the same can be said for any other pro se prisoner-

28

plaintiff and therefore does not establish the necessary exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v.
1

1

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (the district court may request the voluntary

2

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in exceptional circumstances).

3

Furthermore, plaintiff’s chances of success on the merits are not yet clear, and he has shown

4

himself capable of articulating his claims and arguments without assistance. Palmer v. Valdez,

5

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’

6

exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the

7

[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’”

8

(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983))).

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference

10

and appointment of counsel, ECF No. 115, is DENIED.

11

DATED: June 25, 2021

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2