Harden v. Soboro et al

Filing 70

ORDER that 31 Motion for Court Appointed Counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 59 Motion for Notification of Whom is his Court Appointed Counsel is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/12/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Harold D. Harden,
Plaintiff

Case No.: 2:14-cv-560-JAD-PAL

v.

Order re: Docs. 31, 41, 59

Corrections Officer Soboro, et al.,
Defendants
Pro se prisoner Harold D. Harden, who is prosecuting his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim
in forma pauperis, previously moved for appointment of counsel to assist him. Docs. 10, 11. On
June 16, 2014, I denied these motions, finding that Harden had not demonstrated the “exceptional
circumstances” required for me to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant in a civil matter. Doc. 16.
Harden continues to re-urge his request for court-appointed counsel. On September 11, 2014, he
argued that his “impairment will greatly limit his ability to litigate,” and claims that he is “a long
time on and off again mental health patient,” who has been placed in disciplinary segregation, which
limits his access to a law library. Doc. 31 at 1. On October 1, 2014, he moved again for
appointment of counsel, adding to his original arguments that this case is a “complex circumstance
which will require significant research and investigation.” Doc. 41 at 1. He also claims he is
presently “off meds.” Id. Finally, on November 24, 2014, Harden moved for “Notification of
Whom Is His Court Appointed Counsel,” apparently under the mistaken belief that counsel had
already been appointed. Doc. 59 at 1.
On October 28, 2014, Harden also moved for reconsideration of my prior order denying
counsel at Doc. 16, reiterating the arguments contained in Docs. 31 and 41. Harden has apparently
recognized that the proper vehicle for requesting appointment of counsel is to request
reconsideration of my prior order at Doc. 16, not simply filing renewed or redundant new motions.
Thus, I deny his three additional requests for appointment at Docs. 31, 41, and 59 as moot because

27
28

1

1

the relief they request is duplicative of, and more properly presented in, Doc. 50. Harden is strongly

2

advised not to file any more requests for appointment of counsel; I am aware of his request, and will

3

rule on his motion for reconsideration of Doc. 16 in due course.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Harden’s Motion for Court Appointed Counsel
[Doc. 31] is DENIED;
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Harden’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 41] is
DENIED; and
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Harden’s Motion for Notification of Whom Is His Court
Appointed Counsel [Doc. 59] is also DENIED.
DATED February 12, 2015.

11
12

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2