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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?