Barren v. Kohn et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 31 Motion to be Excluded from the Inmate Mediation Program. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

DONALD ROBIN BARREN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
D.W. NEVEN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01492-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to be Excluded from the Inmate

15

Mediation Program (#31), filed on May 3, 2016. Defendant D.W. Neven filed an Opposition (#33)

16

on May 10, 2016.

17

Plaintiff requests that this case be excluded from the Inmate Mediation Program because

18

Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. Defendant opposes this request and

19

asserts that the Inmate Mediation Program “is a valuable tool for both sides to evaluate the strengths

20

and weaknesses of the case and potentially settle the dispute without having to go through the

21

expense and effort of discovery and trial.” Opposition (#33), pg. 3, lns. 9–12. The Court agrees. The

22

fact that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated has no bearing on whether the parties should participate in

23

the Inmate Mediation Program. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request.

24

Plaintiff’s motion also requests that he be appointed counsel for the remainder of this action.

25

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of

26

Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court

27

“may request an attorney to represent” litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. Id. The statute does

28

not require the court to appoint counsel to represent such litigants, but only to request such

1

representation on a pro bono basis. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 304–05

2

(1989); United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 798–804 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

A court may only designate counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in exceptional

4

circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). In determining whether

5

counsel should be appointed, the Court has discretion to consider four relevant factors: (1) the

6

plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel; (3) the

7

meritoriousness of the plaintiff’s claim; and (4) the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro

8

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 269; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at

9

1331.

10

Here, Plaintiff has not established that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the

11

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion fails to set forth any reason why he should be afforded

12

counsel. Thus, the Court is unable to consider the relevant factors discussed above and as a result, the

13

Court will deny Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff may re-file a motion for appointment of counsel that

14

provides the Court with sufficient information establishing that exceptional circumstances exist.

15

Accordingly,

16
17
18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to be Excluded from the Inmate
Mediation Program (#31) is denied.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2016.

19
20
21

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2