Trost v. Cox et al
Filing
7
ORDER granting # 5 Motion to Extend Time : Amended Complaint due by 6/10/2015. Further ordered # 6 Motion for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/21/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
12
ROY TROST,
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No. 3:14-cv-00611-MMD-WGC
ORDER
v.
GREG COX, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
I.
DISCUSSION
18
On April 10, 2015, this Court entered a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s
19
complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, with leave to amend. (Dkt. no. 3 at 10.) The
20
Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of that order to file his amended
21
complaint. (Id.) The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
22
because it did not find any exceptional circumstances warranting an appointment. (Id.)
23
On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file his amended
24
complaint. (Dkt. no. 5.) Plaintiff asks for an additional thirty (30) days to file his amended
25
complaint. (Id. at 1.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff
26
shall file his amended complaint on or before June 10, 2015.
27
On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of
28
appointment of counsel. (Dkt. no. 6 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that he has no knowledge of
1
the law, lacks an education, and has relied on the assistance of other inmates to file his
2
lawsuit. (Id.) Plaintiff has attempted to contact several advocacy groups but has
3
received no help. (Id.) Plaintiff is under severe emotional distress and cannot function
4
without proper medical treatment for his gender identity disorder. (Id.) If he does not
5
receive medical treatment soon, he will die. (Id.)
6
A litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. §
7
1983 civil rights claims. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981).
8
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent
9
any person unable to afford counsel.” However, the court will appoint counsel for
10
indigent civil litigants only in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
11
965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action). “When determining whether ‘exceptional
12
circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as
13
well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
14
of the legal issues involved.” Id.
15
The Court acknowledges that another inmate, John Quintero, helped Plaintiff
16
draft his original complaint. (See dkt. no. 4 at 19.) However, the Court does not find that
17
Plaintiff’s case exhibits exceptional circumstances at this time. The Court must consider
18
the likelihood of success on the merits and Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his complaints
19
pro se. As discussed in the screening order, the Court dismissed the complaint in its
20
entirety, with leave to amend, because Plaintiff’s allegations were too vague and
21
conclusory for the Court to determine if Plaintiff could possibly state any claims. (Dkt.
22
no. 3 at 5-6.) As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a likelihood of
23
success on the merits at this time because he has not stated any cognizable claims.
24
Plaintiff may file another motion for an appointment for counsel after he submits his
25
amended complaint. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial
26
of appointment of counsel.
27
///
28
///
2
1
II.
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion to extend time to file
3
amended complaint (dkt. no. 5) is granted. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on
4
or before June 10, 2015.
5
It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 6) is denied.
6
DATED THIS 21st day of April 2015.
7
8
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?