Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01718/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01718-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY DRIVER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADA 1824 PANELS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SET SETTLEMENT TELECONFERENCE 

AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff Billy Driver, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court set this case for a 

settlement teleconference and appoint counsel to represent him at the settlement teleconference. 

(ECF No. 21.)

However, first, Plaintiff’s request to set this matter for a settlement teleconference is 

premature. On December 16, 2019, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to 

proceed with this action. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed written objections to the findings and 

recommendations on January 21, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and the December 16, 2019 findings and recommendations remain pending before the 

Case 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 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

District Judge assigned to this action. Further, once the District Court either grants Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis or denies Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and Plaintiff pays the filing fee in full, the Court will then screen Plaintiff’s complaint as 

it is required to do pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Since the Court has not yet screened 

Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court has not yet determined whether Plaintiff has stated at least one 

cognizable claim for relief. Additionally, no defendant has appeared in this action. Therefore, 

this action is not ready to be set for a settlement conference and, thus, Plaintiff’s motion for a 

settlement teleconference is denied. Further, the Court’s settlement conferences are usually inperson conferences and not via teleconference.

Second, with regards to Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff does not 

have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 

1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, the court may 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to § 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success 

on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. 

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The burden of demonstrating exceptional 

circumstances is on the plaintiff. Id.

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel, but does not find the 

required exceptional circumstances. First, circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack 

of legal education, limited law library access, and lack of funds to hire counsel, do not alone 

establish the exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointment of counsel. Second, 

since the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot evaluate Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 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

likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Third, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s 

complaint and finds that Plaintiff’s claims do not appear to present novel or complex issues of 

substantive law and that Plaintiff has shown an ability to articulate his claims and litigate this 

action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel must be denied, without 

prejudice.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to set this case for a settlement teleconference, (ECF No. 21), is 

DENIED, as premature; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 21), is DENIED, without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 3