Campbell v. Portillo et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying ECF No. 71 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying ECF No. 72 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ______________________________________ ) ) DAMON LAMAR CAMPBELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MANUEL PORTILLO et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) 3:11-cv-00532-RCJ-VPC ORDER 12 13 Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. He has 14 sued Defendants in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various civil rights violations. The 15 Court permitted excessive force and deliberate indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment 16 to proceed upon screening. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. 17 The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to grant summary 18 judgment to Defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, ruling that Defendants were not 19 entitled to summary judgment against the excessive force claim. Plaintiff has again asked the 20 Court to appoint counsel and has also asked the Court to award him attorney’s fees under 21 § 1988(b). The Court denies the motions. The case is even less complex now than it was when 22 the Magistrate Judge first denied appointment of counsel, because only one claim remains for 23 trial. Nor are attorney’s fees available, as Plaintiff has not yet prevailed on any claim. 24 1 of 2 CONCLUSION 1 2 3 4 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 71) and the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 72) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12th day of July, 2016. 18th day of July, 2016. 6 7 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 of 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?