Johnson v. Johnson et al
Filing
21
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 14 Plaintiff Matthew Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike ECF No. 13 (a reply to Defendants' answer), as this is not a proper filing. Replies to answers are not permitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 19 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
Case 2:20-cv-01270-KJD-BNW Document 21 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
MATTHEW JOHNSON,
5
6
7
8
Case No. 2:20-cv-01270-KJD-BNW
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
B. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
9
10
11
12
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Matthew Johnson’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 14), filed on January 13, 2020. Defendants responded. ECF No. 20.
Johnson filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth,
13
and Fourteenth Amendment. ECF No. 1-1. The Court screened Plaintiff’s claims in an Order
14
entered on October 27, 2020. ECF No. 4. The Court found that Plaintiff plausibly stated one
15
claim: a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under the
16
Fifth and Eighth Amendments with prejudice after finding them inapplicable to the circumstances
17
as a matter of law. Id. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, without
18
prejudice, due to deficiencies of the factual allegations. Id.
19
Johnson requests a court-appointed attorney, arguing he has no access to the law library,
20
that he does not know the rules of discovery, and that having an attorney would allow him to get
21
access to footage in a body camera and fix whatever deficiencies may exist in his complaint. In its
22
response, Defendants set forth the procedures the detention facility has in place to ensure Johnson
23
has proper access to legal materials.
24
Johnson has previously filed a similar motion explaining that his incarceration limits his
25
ability to investigate his claims, conduct legal research, and argue his case. ECF No. 1-2. This
26
court previously denied that request explaining that the circumstances Johnson found himself in
27
did not constitute “exceptional circumstances.” ECF No. 4. While the court sympathizes with
28
Johnson, the court denies his motion under the same rationale.
Case 2:20-cv-01270-KJD-BNW Document 21 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
1
2
“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28
3
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Federal courts do not, however, have the authority “to make coercive
4
appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United
5
States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (forfeiture proceedings).
6
“The court may appoint counsel . . . only under ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Terrell v. Brewer,
7
935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (Bivens action); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,
8
970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action); Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th
9
Cir. 2004) (Bivens action); Burns v. City of King, 883 F.2d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)
10
(§ 1983 action); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984) (Section 1983 action).
11
“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of
12
success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
13
complexity of the issues involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed
14
together before reaching a decision.” Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789
15
F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (§ 1983 action)); see also Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; $292,888.04
16
in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d at 569; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir. 1990)
17
(Section 1983 claims). Appointment of counsel may be justified when proceedings will go
18
forward “more efficiently and effectively.” Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 656 (9th Cir.
19
2000) (per curiam).
20
Here, while the conditions of his confinement make Johnson’s access to legal resources
21
less than optimal, the court is satisfied he still has access to the information he needs. While
22
Johnson’s current housing at the Tonopah Conservation Camp does not have a law library on site,
23
the facility provides him with a caseworker to assist him with legal research and gathering of
24
materials from the law library located at the High Desert State Prison. As a result, this situation
25
does not rise to the level of “exceptional circumstances.” While it is early at this stage to evaluate
26
the likelihood of success on the merits, the Court finds that Plaintiff properly pled at least one
27
claim. Plaintiff seems to be able to properly articulate his claims, and the claims are not
28
particularly complex. For those reasons, this request will be denied.
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:20-cv-01270-KJD-BNW Document 21 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3
1
2
3
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Matthew Johnson’s motion for appointment
of counsel (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall strike ECF No. 13 (a reply to
Defendants’ answer), as this is not a proper filing. Replies to answers are not permitted.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 19 is DENIED as moot.
6
DATED: February 16, 2021.
7
8
9
BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3
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?