Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107-9/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 

NICHOLAS D. FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. HERRERA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-2107 DAD SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has moved for 

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff also asks the court to re-schedule the settlement conference 

which was vacated. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

I. Appointment of Counsel 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 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 § 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). 

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s 

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. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 09/09/24 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 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 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. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

II. Other Requested Relief 

Plaintiff moves the court to “not to enforce a settlement agreement” which includes an 

“invalid provision” and mentions the settlement conference previously set and vacated in this 

case. (ECF No. 33 at 1.) The court construes this portion of plaintiff’s motion as requesting that 

the court reschedule the settlement conference. The settlement conference was vacated on 

August 7, 2024, upon defendants’ request and representation that settlement discussions would 

not be fruitful at this time. (See ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff’s request for relief will be denied, but the 

parties may in the future jointly request the court to set a settlement conference if the parties so 

agree. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for 

appointment of counsel and request to schedule settlement conference (ECF No. 33) are denied. 

DATED: September 8, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 34 Filed 09/09/24 Page 2 of 2