Rutledge v. Griswald et al

Filing 31

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Service of the Amended Complaint, 11 Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshal Regarding the Amended Complaint and 12 Motion for Hearing are denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/4/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

DWIQUITA LANETTE RUTLEDGE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ERICA COTY GRISWALD, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-2175-APG-GWF
ORDER

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service of the

14

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10), Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshal Regarding the

15

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11), Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 12) and Motion for Appointment

16

of Counsel (ECF No. 13), filed on August 9, 2016.

17

On May 1, 2017, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint on the grounds

18

that the Court lacks jurisdiction over her claims. See Order (ECF No. 30). As such, Plaintiff’s

19

Motion to Extend Time for Service (ECF No. 10), Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshal (ECF

20

No. 11) and Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 12) are moot and will therefore be denied.

21

The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 13).

22

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

23

of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). A court may only designate counsel pursuant

24

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) in exceptional circumstances. Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d

25

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied sub nom. Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). In

26

determining whether counsel should be appointed, the Court has discretion to consider four relevant

27

factors: (1) the plaintiff’s financial resources; (2) the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure counsel;

28

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

1

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

2

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing

3

that she should be appointed counsel.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service of the

6

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10), Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshal Regarding the

7

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) and Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 12) are denied as moot.

8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 13) is denied without prejudice.
DATED this 4th day of May, 2017.

11
12
13

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2