Tipton v. Guice et al
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for In Camera Submissions (ECF No. 95 ), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 99 ), and Motion for a Status Check (ECF No. 100 ) are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 1/7/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
Case 3:17-cv-00032-RCJ-CLB Document 101 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GUICE, et al.,
Several motions are currently pending. The court will address each motion in turn.
ECF No. 95 – Plaintiff’s motion for in camera submissions
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that defendants provide all confidential records and
investigations to the court for review in camera (ECF No. 95). The court has reviewed all
exhibits submitted as evidence in relation to defendants’ motions for summary judgment and
has issued report and recommendation denying both motions (ECF Nos. &4 & 97).
Declarations, affidavits, and exhibits that do not support a motion, a response to a
motion, or a reply to a motion may not be filed. Exhibits are to be filed only as attachments
in support of a motion, a response to a motion, or a reply in support of a motion. Therefore,
plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 95) is DENIED.
ECF No. 99 – Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
This is a civil rights action brought by pro se prisoner plaintiff, Duane Tipton. Plaintiff
has moved for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 99).
A litigant in a civil rights action does not have a Sixth Amendment right to appointed
counsel. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Supreme Court
has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners
in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).
In only “exceptional circumstances,” the court may request voluntary assistance of counsel
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
Case 3:17-cv-00032-RCJ-CLB Document 101 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2
Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.
exceptional circumstances requires that the court evaluate both the likelihood of success on
the merits and the pro se litigant’s ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of
the legal issues involved. Neither factor is controlling; both must be viewed together in
making the finding. Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014). The court
exercises discretion in making this finding. Id. (citing Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970).
A finding of such
In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious
allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The court
is faced with similar cases almost daily. The court will not enter an order directing the
appointment of counsel in this case. The plaintiff has demonstrated that he is able to litigate
this case on his own. He has filed a complaint and motions with the court. The plaintiff may
have the assistance of law clerks at the prison.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 99) is DENIED.
ECF No. 100 – Motion for status check
Plaintiff’s motion for a status check (ECF No. 100) is DENIED. The Court will notify
the plaintiff as soon as any action is taken in his case. Due to the large number of civil
actions pending before the Court, THE CLERK IS UNABLE TO RESPOND IN WRITING TO
INDIVIDUAL INQUIRIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF CASES. As long as the plaintiff
keeps the Court apprised of his current address, he will receive all Court decisions which
might affect the status of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 7, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?