Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00525-20/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

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD VOGEL, et al.,

Defendant.

1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 

DISREGARDING MOTION TO 

TERMINATE SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE AS MOOT

(Docs. 115, 116)

On May 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and a 

motion to “vacate/stop/termination of settlement conference.” (Docs. 115, 116.) 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 an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional 

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 

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 

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

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).

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 119 Filed 05/18/16 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

Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious 

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is 

faced with similar cases almost daily. Further, at this early stage in the proceedings, the court 

cannot make a determination that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and based on a 

review of the record in this case, the court does not find that plaintiff cannot adequately articulate 

his claims. Id. 

A settlement conference was held in this case on May 5, 2016, which was unsuccessful. 

(See Doc. 112.) When the parties arrived at an impasse, the settlement conference ended, and 

Plaintiff was transported back to the California State Prison in Corcoran, California. There is no 

further settlement conference calendared in this case to be vacated. Defendants have filed a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 97) which has been fully briefed and will be 

considered and ruled on in due course. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff=s motion (Doc. 115) for the appointment of counsel is 

HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 116) to vacate/stop/terminate 

the settlement conference is DISREGARDED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 119 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 2