Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00542/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00542-18/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 an initial pretrial conference. ECF No. 115. The motion is largely 

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

defendant Mays. Id. 

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

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

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

proceed to trial and the motion is therefore premature. 

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

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

make pursuing this case easier for plaintiff, the same can be said for any other pro se prisonerplaintiff and therefore does not establish the necessary exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. 

Case 2:16-cv-00542-DAD-AC Document 116 Filed 06/28/21 Page 1 of 2
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 

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

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

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

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

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“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.’” 

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

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

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

DATED: June 25, 2021 

Case 2:16-cv-00542-DAD-AC Document 116 Filed 06/28/21 Page 2 of 2