Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00892/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00892-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-0892-TLN-JDP (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Pending 

before me are plaintiff’s motions to consolidate cases and for the appointment of counsel, and 

defendants’ motion for a settlement conference. 

Motion to Consolidate Cases

Plaintiff moves to have this matter consolidated with two other civil actions pending in 

this district. ECF No. 21; see Muhammad v. Orr, No. 2:19-cv-01289-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.); 

Muhammad v. Linennger, No. 2:20-cv-00070-DAD-DMC (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff seeks 

consolidation of these matters for the purpose of achieving a global settlement agreement. On the 

same day plaintiff filed his motion for consolidation, he filed two nearly identical motions in the 

other cases. See Orr at ECF No. 71; Linennger at ECF No. 45. Both Judge Delaney and Judge 

Cota denied plaintiff’s motions to consolidate. See Orr at ECF No. 78; Linennger at ECF No. 55. 

Both judges found, as I do here, that these cases do not involve common questions of law and fact 

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 32 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and that the actions should not be consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is denied. 

Request for a Settlement Conference 

A settlement conference was set before Judge Cota on June 1, 2023, but the conference 

did not proceed because plaintiff was transferred to a crisis bed on the morning of the conference. 

Defendants have since met and conferred with plaintiff and believe that a settlement conference 

would be beneficial. See ECF No. 31. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a settlement 

conference is granted. 

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel

District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 

cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the 

court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 

F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” 

exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse 

discretion in declining to appoint counsel). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id. Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of 

legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 

warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel because in May of this year he was 

transferred to a mental health crisis bed and expects to receive ongoing treatment for an extended 

period of time. ECF No. 28. After considering the factors under Palmer, the court finds that 

plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting the 

appointment of counsel at this time.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate, ECF No. 21, is denied.

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 32 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 28, is denied. 

3. Defendants’ motion to set a settlement conference, ECF No. 31, is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00892-TLN-JDP Document 32 Filed 08/01/23 Page 3 of 3