Sexton v. County of Clark Nevada (COCN) et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying 9 Motion to Strike. The 10 Motion to Direct Clerk to file Complaint is Denied.The 11 Motion to Add Assisting Inmate to Transaction Service List is Denied. The 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 Motions directing inmate-to-inma te correspondence are Denied without prejudice.The 12 , 19 Motions related to service are Denied.The 20 , 23 Motions for appointment of counsel are Denied and the 27 Motion for court action is Denied. A Status Hearing is set for 10/13/2017 at 2:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

AMANDA LEA SEXTON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. 2:16-cv-02289-RFB-VCF
ORDER

v.
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et
al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

I.

DISCUSSION

17

Plaintiff, who is an inmate in the custody of the Clark County Detention Center

18

(“CCDC”), is awaiting the screening of her third amended complaint (ECF No. 8). In the

19

meantime, Plaintiff has filed multiple miscellaneous motions that the Court will address

20

now.

21

A.

Filing Fee Motions

22

Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike her application to proceed in forma pauperis

23

because she has paid the $350 filing fee. (ECF No. 9 at 1). On November 18, 2016, the

24

Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed her to pay

25

the $350 filing fee when she had the funds. (See ECF No. 5 at 17). Plaintiff has fulfilled

26

the payment obligation. The Court denies the motion to strike.

27

///

28

///

1

The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion to direct the Clerk of the Court to file her

2

amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). The Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to file the

3

amended complaint when procedurally applicable to do so.

4

B.

Service Motions

5

Plaintiff has filed two motions related to service (ECF No. 12, 19). The Court

6

denies these motions without prejudice as procedurally premature. The Court will order

7

service when procedurally applicable.

8

C.

Inmate-to-Inmate Correspondence Motions

9

Plaintiff has filed seven motions related to seeking an order directing CCDC

10

personnel to permit her to correspond with another inmate, Toney White, while in custody.

11

(See ECF No. 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22). Court denies these motions without prejudice

12

at this time. Given the volume of motions being filed, the Court will set a status conference

13

in this case to set an orderly schedule for the filing of motions and to set parameters on

14

what motion can be appropriately filed.

15

D.

16

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20, 23). A

17

litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

18

rights claims. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable

20

to afford counsel.” However, the court will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only

21

in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)

22

(§ 1983 action). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court

23

must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner

24

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id.

25

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id.

26

In the instant case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances that warrant the

27

appointment of counsel. The Court denies the motions for appointment of counsel.

28

E.

Motions for Appointment of Counsel

Motion for Court Action

-2-

1

Plaintiff has filed a motion for court action to screen her third amended complaint

2

and to address her outstanding motions. (ECF No. 27). The Court denies the motion as

3

moot. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is in line for screening. The

4
5

screening process will take several months. The Court notes that the continuous filing of

6

miscellaneous motions in this case increases the Court’s caseload and does not permit

7

the Court to screen Plaintiff’s third amended complaint any sooner.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

II.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons noted,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike (ECF No. 9) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to direct clerk to file complaint (ECF

No. 10) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to add assisting inmate to transaction
service list (ECF No. 11) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions directing inmate-to-inmate
correspondence (ECF No. 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22) are denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions related to service (ECF No. 12, 19)
are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for appointment of counsel (ECF No.
20, 23) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for court action (ECF No. 27) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is set for October 13, 2017 at
2:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7D.
DATED: September 29, 2017.

27
RICHARD F. BOULWARE II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

-3-