Kennedy v. Watts et al

Filing 22

ORDER that the motion for court intervention (ECF No. 3 ) is denied as moot; the motion for appointment (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice; the motion to file additional pages to complaint (ECF No. 19 ) is granted; the Court will screen Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 21 ) in a separate screening order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

KEVIN LEE KENNEDY,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 3:17-cv-00468-MMD-WGC
ORDER

v.
DAN WATTS et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

DISCUSSION

16

Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

17

(“NDOC”), has submitted a first amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983 (ECF No. 21) and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.

19

1), a motion for court intervention and appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3), and a motion

20

to file additional pages to complaint (ECF No. 19). The Court has not yet screened the

21

first amended complaint.

22

In the motion for court intervention, Plaintiff sought the Court’s help because jail

23

officials were not returning his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 The Court

24

denies Plaintiff’s motion for court intervention as moot because the Court will consider

25

Plaintiff’s application complete in light of Plaintiff attaching a letter from the White Pine

26

County Sheriff’s Office stating that they will not sign the application. (ECF No. 1-2).

27
28

1

When Plaintiff initiated this case, he was a pretrial detainee in the custody of the
White Pine County Sheriff’s Office. (ECF No. 3).

1

With respect to the motion for appointment of counsel, a litigant does not have a

2

constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. Storseth

3

v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),

4

“[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”

5

However, the court will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in “exceptional

6

circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action).

7

“When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the

8

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his

9

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. “Neither of these

10

considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. In the instant

11

case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of

12

counsel. The Court denies the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

13

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion seeking to file additional pages to his complaint

14

(ECF No. 19). The Court will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) in a

15

separate screening order.

16

II.

17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion for court intervention

(ECF No. 3) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the motion for appointment (ECF No. 3) is denied without
prejudice.

21

It is further ordered that the motion to file additional pages to complaint (ECF No.

22

19) is granted. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) in

23

a separate screening order.

24

DATED: August 10, 2018.

25
26

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

-2-