Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157-43/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 

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:07-cv-0157-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded 

this action for further proceedings on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, finding that 

this court had too narrowly construed the claim. ECF No. 259. Plaintiff now seeks appointment 

of counsel, a settlement conference, and a trial date. ECF Nos. 260-262. Defendants oppose the 

setting of a trial date and request that the court reopen discovery and law and motion for the 

limited purpose of clarifying the basis of plaintiff’s retaliation claim. ECF No. 265. Good cause 

appearing, defendants’ request to reopen discovery and law and motion is granted. Plaintiff’s 

requests are denied without prejudice. 

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, now broadened in scope, appears to be that on August 12, 

2005, defendants Deforest, Goni, Prater, Shelton, and Stone retaliated against him, through acts of 

intimidation and excessive force, because he requested a religious dietary meal and had filed prior 

lawsuits. See ECF No. 24 at 6-7; ECF No. 182. Given the evolving nature of this claim, 

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 267 Filed 05/21/15 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

however, defendants will be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery concerning the factual 

and legal basis of the claim against each defendant. Until the basis of plaintiff’s claim is clarified, 

it is premature to set dates for a settlement conference or trial. 

Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to 

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States 

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an 

attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 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, the 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). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no 

exceptional circumstances in this case. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case; 

2. Discovery is reopened for the purpose of addressing the basis of plaintiff’s retaliation 

claim. The parties may conduct discovery until September 25, 2015.1 Any motions 

necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than July 24, 

2015. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before December 18, 2015. Motions 

shall be briefed in accordance with paragraph 7 of the order filed October 16, 2008. 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel, a settlement conference, and a trial 

date (ECF Nos. 260-262) are denied without prejudice. 

DATED: May 21, 2015. 

 1

 Defendants may depose plaintiff via video-conference if video-conferencing equipment 

is available at the institution in which plaintiff is housed. 

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 267 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2