Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01770/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01770-4/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

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

TROY SYKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GALINDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET EARLY

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND APPOINT 

COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 22)

Plaintiff Troy Sykes is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court previously ordered parties to 

meet and confer regarding whether a settlement conference would be productive at this time. 

(ECF No. 21). After conferring, defense counsel has reached out to ADR Coordinator to 

schedule the settlement conference, and Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to set the 

conference and also to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 22).

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in part, and will set this case for a settlement 

conference. The Court will issue a separate order specifying the date and time for the 

conference and detailing the pre-settlement conference procedures in due course.

However, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for counsel. Plaintiff does not have a 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 

(9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the 

Case 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG Document 24 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 2
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

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 

(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 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a 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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

It is too early in the case to determine Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits 

such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. After the review of 

Plaintiff’s pleadings, however, it appears that the legal issues involved are not extremely 

complex and that Plaintiff is able to articulate the facts underlying his claims. Accordingly, the 

Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for counsel without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to set this case for a settlement conference is GRANTED. The 

Court will issue a separate order specifying the date and time for the conference 

and detailing the pre-settlement conference procedures.

2. Plaintiff’s request to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01770-KES-EPG Document 24 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 2