Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01468-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW H. BECKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR A MEDIATOR 

(Doc. 66) 

Plaintiff Matthew H. Beckett is a former state prisoner and current civil detainee

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against 

Defendants Scalia, Madrigal and Hernandez and failure to protect/failure to intervene claims 

against Defendant Hackworth, and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs claims against Defendants Scalia, Madrigal, Hernandez, Hackworth, and Hurtado. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR and Staying Case for 

90 Days on September 13, 2024. (Doc. 64.) 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 67 Filed 10/01/24 Page 1 of 4
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

On September 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice Regarding Early Settlement Conference, 

indicating his wish to participate in a settlement conference. (Doc. 65.) That same date, Plaintiff 

filed a document titled “Plaintiff-requesting mediator for settlement conference.” (Doc. 66.) 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court construes Plaintiff’s September 27, 2024, request to be a motion for the 

appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of representation at a settlement conference. 

(Doc. 66.) Plaintiff states he is “not a professional negotiator” and does not possess a high school 

diploma. (Id. at 1.) He asserts appointing counsel to present him “for the entire process the 

settlement start to finish” is in his best interest. (Id.) Plaintiff cites to out of district and/or circuit 

authority in support of his request. (Id.) Plaintiff states he is “again requesting that this court 

would take into consideration [his] hospitalization and the facts / documentation that [he has] 

repeatedly provided to this court of [his] deserving a competency hearing.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 

contends he has “provided a ‘treatment plan’ that shows all the doctors, social workers, 

[psychiatric] technicians, medical staff and [their] stamp of sworn treatment as well as [his] 

psychiatric diagnosis, medical issues and definitively more.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts he has 

provided more documentation than the plaintiff in Allen v. Calderon.

1

(Id.) He states he “will 

include another ‘Treatment plan’ and a second declaration written by another patient Daniel 

Kauwe AT# 075537-4, and also another self declared missive.” (Id.) 

Initially, the Court notes it has not been determined that an early settlement conference 

will occur in this action. While Plaintiff has returned his notice indicating a wish to participate, 

Defendants have not yet done so. Defendants have until October 28, 2024, within which to notify 

the Court whether they wish to participate in an early settlement conference. Participation is 

voluntary. If Defendants elect not to participate in an early settlement conference, a settlement 

conference will not be scheduled and instead this matter will proceed to the discovery process. 

Hence, Plaintiff’s request is premature. 

Second, as Plaintiff has been repeatedly advised, his lack of knowledge of the law and 

limited education do not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 

1 408 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 67 Filed 10/01/24 Page 2 of 4
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

counsel, even on a limited basis. (See Doc. 33 at 4-5 [“circumstances common to most prisoners, 

such as lack of legal education ... do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant 

a request for voluntary assistance of counsel”]; see also, e.g., Doc. 61.) 

Third, despite Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary, he has not provided the Court with 

sufficient evidence warranting a competency hearing. (Doc. 33 at 4:22-5:20 [discussion re 

competency hearing]; Doc. 512[Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel and for 

Competency Determination]; Doc. 55 at 2:14-23 [discussion re requirements for competency 

hearing]; Doc. 613[Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Competency Determination and to 

Appoint Counsel].) Moreover, the instant motion does not include “another ‘Treatment plan’ and 

a second declaration written by another patient Daniel Kauwe AT# 075537-4, and also another 

self declared missive.” The motion filed with this Court consists of a total of three pages: the 

two-page typed motion and a handwritten proof of service. (Doc. 66.) In other words, no 

“treatment plan,” declaration by patient Kauwe, or “self declared missive” were provided. 

In sum, this Court has considered and denied numerous motions by Plaintiff to appoint 

counsel and to hold a competency hearing. Plaintiff has not established that exceptional 

circumstances exists warranting the appointment of counsel, even on a limited basis. Nor has 

Plaintiff provided the required documentation for a competency hearing. The Court has 

repeatedly explained the deficiencies concerning Plaintiff’s requests for a competency hearing 

and those deficiencies remain. 

//

//

//

//

2

“Here, the Court will not order a competency determination on Plaintiff’s statements alone. Plaintiff must present 

‘substantial evidence of incompetence’ but has failed to do so. If Plaintiff wishes the Court to make such a 

determination, he must submit evidence for the Court’s consideration. Something more than Plaintiff’s statements 

alone....” (Doc. 51 at 4, italics in original.) 

3

“Until Plaintiff provides this Court with substantial evidence of a mental disability or deficiency related to his 

ability to litigation this action, Plaintiff’s requests for a competency determination and/or for the appointment of 

counsel will be denied. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to obtain the necessary medical records or documentation and to 

provide it to the Court.” (Doc. 61 at 4.)

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 67 Filed 10/01/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion or request filed September 27, 2024 (Doc. 

66), seeking counsel for the limited purpose of representation at a settlement conference, is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01468-CDB Document 67 Filed 10/01/24 Page 4 of 4