Walls v. Corrections Corporation of America

Filing 31

ORDER that 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel is GRANTED. This case is referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program for appointment of counsel for the purposes identified herein. By referring this case to the Program, the court is not expressing an opinion as to the merits of the case or guaranteeing that a volunteer lawyer will be willing and available to accept the appointment.The Clerk of the Court is instructed to mail Mr. Walls a copy of General Order 2014-01 with this Order. FURTHER ORDERED that 29 Motion for Status Hearing is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/15/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF: cc Pro Bono Liaison - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ALEXANDER WALLS,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:14-cv-02201-KJD-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA (d.b.a. Nevada Southern Detention
Center),

(Mot. Appt Counsel – ECF No. 27;
Mot. for Status Hr’g – ECF No. 29)

Defendant.

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Alexander Walls’ Motion for Appointment of

14

Counsel (ECF No. 27) and Motion for Status Hearing (ECF No. 29). These Motions are referred

15

to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of

16

Practice. The court has considered the Motions and Defendant Corrections Corporation of

17

America’s Responses (ECF Nos. 28, 30). No reply briefs were filed and the deadlines for doing

18

so have now expired.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Mr. Walls is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the United

21

States Penitentiary Terre Haute. This action was commenced on December 24, 2014, with the

22

filing of a complaint by Walls’ then counsel, who has since been granted leave to withdraw from

23

the case. See Order (ECF No. 25) (granting Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 23) by Paul Padda

24

and John Shannon). The Complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges that Defendant Corrections Corporation

25

of America (“Defendant”) owns and operates the Nevada Southern Detention Center (“NSDC”)

26

in Pahrump, Nevada. Id. ¶ 5. While he was incarcerated at NSDC in January 2014, Mr. Walls

27

was attacked by another inmate and stabbed in his left eye with a “shank.” Id. ¶ 6. He began to

28

bleed profusely from that eye and was provided a towel to clean himself up, but was not offered
1

1

any immediate medical assistance. Id. Defendant’s personnel later determined that Walls

2

needed emergency medical care, but took no steps to transport him to an appropriate medical

3

facility for treatment until nearly five hours had passed. Id. ¶ 7. He was eventually transported

4

to the trauma unit at University Medical Center (“UMC”) in Las Vegas. Id.

5

Upon arrival at UMC, Walls underwent emergency surgery for “evisceration of the left

6

eye.” Id. ¶ 8. A board certified ophthalmologist, Thomas Kelly, M.D., operated on him but the

7

doctor was unable to save his eye. Id. Dr. Kelly later informed Walls’ father that his son’s eye

8

may have been saved if Walls had been transported sooner. Id. As a result of stabbing incident

9

and the significant delay in emergency medical care, Mr. Walls “has lost complete vision and

10

functionality of his left eye rendering him permanently disabled.” Id. ¶ 9. Walls states claims

11

against Defendant for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 3–4. He

12

seeks compensatory damages of at least $15 million, exemplary and punitive damages, litigation

13

costs and attorney’s fees. Id. at 5.

14

Service of process was executed and Defendant filed an Answer (ECF No. 13) on June

15

23, 2015, without filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure. On August 17, 2015, the court entered a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 17) approving

17

the parties’ Proposed Joint Discovery Plan (ECF No. 16), which requested special scheduling

18

review. The Scheduling Order set the following deadlines: (i) amending pleadings, adding

19

parties, Plaintiff’s expert disclosures – December 24, 2015; (ii) Defendant’s expert disclosures –

20

January 22, 2016; (iii) rebuttal expert disclosures – February 22, 2016; (iv) discovery cut-off –

21

March 23, 2016; (v) dispositive motions – April 22, 2016; and (v) pre-trial order – May 23,

22

2016, or 30 days after a decision on a dispositive motion.

23

On December 24, 2015, the court entered an Order (ECF No. 22) approving the parties’

24

stipulation and extending the following discovery deadlines: (i) Plaintiff’s expert disclosures –

25

April 1, 2016; (ii) Defendant’s expert disclosures – May 2, 2016; (iii) rebuttal expert disclosures

26

– June 1, 2016; (iv) discovery cut-off – July 1, 2016; (v) dispositive motions – August 1, 2016;

27

and (v) pre-trial order – September 1, 2016, or 30 days after a decision on a dispositive motion.

28

Notably, neither party filed a dispositive motion before the August 1, 2016 deadline.
2

1

On March 29, 2016, Walls’ counsel, Paul Padda and John Shannon filed a Motion to

2

Withdraw (ECF No. 23) from this case. Counsel represented that Mr. Walls was incarcerated at

3

NSDC in Pahrump when the case began but was subsequently transferred to a facility in Indiana.

4

Counsel’s attempts to communicate with Walls after the transfer were unsuccessful. Counsel

5

asserted that Mr. Walls’ relocation to Indiana rendered the litigation of this matter significantly

6

burdensome for counsel, both logistically and financially.

7

counsel’s motion and gave Walls until May 19, 2016, to either retain substitute counsel or file a

8

notice indicating that he will be proceeding pro se, meaning that he is representing himself. Id.

9

at 2.

The court, therefore, granted

10

On May 12, 2016, Mr. Walls filed a Notice of Appearing Pro Se (ECF No. 26) and

11

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 27). He filed the notice to comply with the

12

court’s directive and indicates that he is representing himself until he can retain new counsel.

13

Additionally, Walls asserts that the nature of this litigation is too complex and difficult for him to

14

litigate as a layman. Due to the severity of the damage he sustained to his optical nerves, Mr.

15

Walls maintains that the interests of justice and the convenience of the court warrant the

16

appointment of counsel.

17

demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to justify an appointment of counsel.

Defendant’s Opposition (ECF No. 28) states that Walls has not

18

On June 10, 2016, Walls filed a Motion for Status Hearing (ECF No. 29). He explains

19

that his prior counsel has possession of his case file and information necessary to respond to

20

Defendant’s discovery requests; thus, Walls asks the court to set this matter for a status

21

conference. Defendant’s Opposition (ECF No. 30) to this motion asserts that a status conference

22

is not feasible or necessary at this time because Mr. Walls should be able to respond to the

23

majority of the requests at issue based solely on his personal knowledge and documents already

24

in his personal possession. However, Defendant acknowledges that Walls is not likely to have

25

certain responsive documents such as his expert’s files and any texts treatises, or other

26

documents relied upon by Walls’ experts to support their opinions. If Walls needs additional

27

documents that are in his former attorney’s possession, he should write or call his former

28

///
3

1

attorney. Therefore, the request for a status hearing should be denied, and the court should order

2

Walls to immediately respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests.
DISCUSSION

3
4

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may ask an attorney to represent an indigent

5

litigant. The court cannot require counsel to represent a party under this statute, or direct

6

payment for a litigant’s attorney’s fees, it merely allows the court to request that an attorney

7

represent an indigent litigant on a pro bono basis. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct., 490

8

U.S. 296, 304–05 (1989); United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 798–804 (9th Cir.

9

1986).

10

Attorneys admitted to practice in the District of Nevada have a strong tradition of

11

providing pro bono representation to indigent litigants in civil cases. General Order 2014-01

12

established the Pilot Pro Bono Program (“Program”) through which volunteer lawyers provide

13

their time and resources to preserve access to justice for individuals unable to afford counsel and

14

these lawyers greatly assist the court in the performance of its mission. At any time during the

15

course of litigation, the court may exercise its discretion to refer the case to the Program for the

16

appointment of pro bono counsel. However, referral to the Program is not an endorsement of the

17

merits of the case and it does not guarantee that an attorney will be willing and available to

18

accept the appointment.

19

Based on the procedural posture of this case, the court finds good cause to grant Mr.

20

Walls’ motion and refer the case to the Program. This case is, therefore, referred to the Program

21

for the purpose of screening for financial eligibility and identifying counsel willing and available

22

to be appointed as pro bono counsel. The scope of appointment shall be for all purposes through

23

the conclusion of trial.

24

With regard to Mr. Walls’s Motion for Status Hearing (ECF No. 29), the court finds that

25

the issues raised in the motion may be addressed by counsel through the meet and confer process

26

should pro bono counsel be appointed. Thus, the motion will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly,

27
28

///
4

1

IT IS ORDERED:

2

1. Plaintiff Alexander Walls’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 27) is

3

GRANTED.

4

2. This case is referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program for appointment of counsel for the

5

purposes identified herein. By referring this case to the Program, the court is not

6

expressing an opinion as to the merits of the case or guaranteeing that a volunteer

7

lawyer will be willing and available to accept the appointment.

8
9

3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to mail Mr. Walls a copy of General Order 201401 with this Order.

10

4. The Clerk shall also forward a copy of this order to the Pro Bono Liaison.

11

5. Mr. Walls’s Motion for Status Hearing (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice.

12

Dated this 15th day of September, 2016.

13
14
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5