Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00542/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00542-13/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 

MATTHEW DENNIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

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

§ 1983, has filed a motion for a Rule 16 pretrial conference in which he requests the appointment 

of counsel and alleges that he is being retaliated against by various correctional officers for 

pursuing this action. ECF No. 97. 

 Shortly after this case was referred to the court’s Post-Screening Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) Project for a settlement conference, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of an 

earlier denial of preliminary injunctive relief. ECF No. 80. The court then stayed the 

proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. ECF No. 87. After the stay was issued, the parties 

filed several matters. Defendants requested to opt-out of the Post-Screening ADR Project, ECF 

No. 88, and filed an answer to the third amended complaint, ECF No. 89, while plaintiff 

submitted a declaration directed to the court’s ADR judge, ECF No. 92, and another addressing 

his preparations for discovery, ECF No. 93. The undersigned acknowledged plaintiff’s desire to 

Case 2:16-cv-00542-DAD-AC Document 98 Filed 04/06/21 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 

pursue discovery and defendants’ disinclination to participate in ADR, and advised that those 

matters would be revisited upon resolution of the interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 95. Now that 

the appeal has been resolved, the court will address these outstanding matters. 

 In requesting to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project, defendants cited plaintiff’s 

settlement expectations, but also relied on the pending interlocutory appeal, concerns regarding 

COVID-19, and the fact that they had not received all of plaintiff’s medical records. ECF No. 88. 

Because the appeal has been resolved, COVID-19 concerns may have changed, and the passage 

of time may have allowed defendants to obtain plaintiff’s medical records, defendants will be 

required to notify the court whether they still seek to opt out of ADR. If defendants are no longer 

seeking to opt out, formal discovery will remain stayed and the case will be scheduled for a 

settlement conference. If defendants are still seeking to opt out, the stay in this case will be lifted 

and a discovery and scheduling order will issue, at which time plaintiff may send out his 

discovery requests. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for counsel, the United States Supreme Court has ruled 

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

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

circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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, a court must consider ‘the 

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) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 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 would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. 

Plaintiff requests counsel on the grounds that he requires help with a pretrial conference 

and discovery and that he is not being afforded sufficient law library access. ECF No. 97 at 2. 

Case 2:16-cv-00542-DAD-AC Document 98 Filed 04/06/21 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 

Plaintiff’s claim of insufficient law library access is common to most inmates and does not 

warrant appointment of counsel. If plaintiff requires additional time to meet deadlines due to his 

limited access, he may file motions for extension of time that identify the deadline he needs 

extended, how much additional time he requires, and why he requires the additional time. 

Furthermore, because plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, this case will not be set for a Rule 

16 pretrial conference. With respect to plaintiff’s claim that he requires counsel to assist with 

discovery, plaintiff states that he has already prepared several discovery requests and discovery 

motions, and it has not been shown that his attempts at obtaining discovery will be unsuccessful. 

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

himself capable of articulating his claims and arguments without assistance. For these reasons, 

the request for counsel will be denied. 

Finally, with respect to plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, it is unclear what relief he is 

seeking. However, there is no indication that defendants are involved in the retaliation, and 

absent evidence that the individuals allegedly retaliating against plaintiff are working in concert 

with defendants, this court has no jurisdiction over them. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (“[A] nonparty with notice cannot be held in contempt 

until shown to be in concert or participation.”)). Therefore, if plaintiff seeks any relief with 

respect to the alleged retaliation, he will need to file a separate complaint against the individuals 

he believes are retaliating against him. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Within fourteen days of the service of this order, defendants shall advise the court 

whether they are still seeking to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference, ECF No. 97, is DENIED. 

3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 97, is DENIED. 

DATED: April 5, 2021 

Case 2:16-cv-00542-DAD-AC Document 98 Filed 04/06/21 Page 3 of 3