Harden v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 188

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 170 Plaintiff's motion of objection is DENIED. No correction to the docket text is necessary. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 177 Plaintiff's motion for status inquiry is GRANTED. This order shall serve as a r esponse to the request for a status inquiry. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 187 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HAROLD D. HARDEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-01168-RFB-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion of objection (ECF No. 170), filed on

11

December 12, 2016, motion for status inquiry (ECF No. 177), filed on March 1, 2017, and motion

12

for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 187), filed on April 25, 2017. Defendants have not filed any

13

response to these motions.

14

Plaintiff’s motion of objection (ECF No. 170) is a request for the Court to correct the docket

15

text of Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (ECF No. 166). In his request for judicial notice,

16

Plaintiff requested that the Court take note of “all unadjudicated motions.” The Clerk listed, in the

17

docket text, a number of motions that, at that time, were still pending. However, not all pending

18

motions were listed in the docket text. The Court acknowledges this, but notes that the docket text is

19

not meant to be a comprehensive account of every motion. When considering a motion, the Court

20

looks to the text of the motion itself, not the docket text summary, to determine the proper course of

21

action. The Court assures Plaintiff that the Court is aware of all pending motions in this case and

22

each will be given its due consideration. The Court notes that since Plaintiff originally filed this

23

motion, a hearing was held in this matter (ECF No. 182) in which most, if not all, of the pending

24

motions in this case were resolved. Any remaining pending motions are still being considered by the

25

Court. No correction to the docket text is necessary.

26

Plaintiff’s motion for status inquiry (ECF No. 170) is a similar request for information

27

regarding the status of this case. With regard to this motion, the Court reiterates its statements from

28

1

1

above: the Court is aware of all pending motions in this case and each will be given its due

2

consideration.

3

As for Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 187), the Court has previously

4

considered this request from Plaintiff (ECF No. 33), and denied the motion (ECF No. 34). The

5

Court will rely on that motion except to the extent that Plaintiff can show a material change of

6

circumstances.

7

Courts have discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney

8

represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” See Ageyman v.

9

Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). However, “[t]here is no

10

constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525

11

(9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). After a review of Plaintiff’s case, the Court previously found that

12

there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues that

13

since his claim has partially survived Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he should now be

14

appointed counsel. The Court notes that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 99)

15

was granted in part and denied in part at a hearing held on March 1, 2017. The Court granted

16

dismissal on all claims except for deliberate indifference. The Court finds that, with only a single

17

remaining claim, and no showing of materially changed circumstances otherwise, Plaintiff has not

18

shown the exceptional circumstances necessary for appointment of counsel.

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion of objection (ECF No. 170) is
DENIED. No correction to the docket text is necessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for status inquiry (ECF No. 177) is
GRANTED. This order shall serve as a response to the request for a status inquiry.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
187) is DENIED.
DATED: April 28, 2017.

8
9

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3