(PC) Dennis v. Kernan ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW DENNIS, No. 2:16-cv-0542 JAM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 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 |} 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 plaintiffs motion for a pretrial conference 10 | and appointment of counsel, ECF No. 115, is DENIED. 11 | DATED: June 25, 2021 ~ 12 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28