Rhymes v. Keast

Filing 65

ORDER granting ECF No. 64 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. This case is referred to the Pro Bono Program adopted in Amended General Order 2019-07 for the purpose of identifying counsel willing to be appointed as pro bono counsel for Rhymes. The scope of appointment will be for the limited purposes of representing Rhymes at trial. By referring this case to the Program, the Court is not expressing an opinion as to the merits of the case. This case is referred to the Pro Bono Program for appoi ntment of counsel for the purposes as stated herein. Clerk of Court to forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison (forwarded on 12/20/21). Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/20/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) Modified on 12/20/2021 to indicate forwarding to Pro Bono Liasion (HKL).

Case 3:17-cv-00679-MMD-CLB Document 65 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

MICHAEL RHYMES,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:17-cv-00679-MMD-CLB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JOHN KEAST, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Plaintiff Michael Rhymes, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department

12

of Corrections, filed a first amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

(ECF No. 7 (“FAC”).) The Court previously ordered that Counts I and III of the FAC,

14

alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the Eigth Amendment, proceed against

15

Defendants Romeo Aranas, Gaylene Fukagawa, John Keast, Melissa Mitchell, Candis

16

Rumbar, and Theresa Wickman. (ECF No. 49.) Before the Court is Rhymes’s motion for

17

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 64 (“Motion”).) Because the Court finds exceptional

18

circumstances exists—as further discussed below—the Court will grant the Motion.

19

Generally, a litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.

21

1981). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent

22

any person unable to afford counsel.” However, the Court will appoint counsel for indigent

23

civil litigants only in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970

24

(9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’

25

exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability

26

of the petitioner to articulate his [or her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

27

issues involved.” Id. “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be

28

viewed together.” Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00679-MMD-CLB Document 65 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 2

1

In his Motion, Rhymes argues that the appointment of counsel is appropriate

2

because he will be unable to proceed on his own “due to cataract-opacity of the lens or

3

capsule of the eye, causing total or partial blindness.” (ECF No. 64 at 5.) Rhymes states

4

he was diagnosed with glaucoma in February 2015, and that he continues to suffer from

5

glaucoma and retinitis pigmentosa. (Id. at 4.) As a result, Rhymes will be required to have

6

surgery. (Id.) Moreover, Rhymes further states he was informed by a specialist in April

7

2017, that he “had incurred cornea damage and substantial vision lost in his left eye.” (Id.)

8

Rhymes had also explained the effect his vision challenges will have on his ability to

9

prosecute his claims at the calendar call, resulting in the Court granting his request for

10

continuance of trial for him to obtain counsel. In light of the circumstances imparing

11

Rhymes’s vision, therefore significantly preventing him from articulating and prosecuting

12

his claims at trial, the Court finds exceptional circumstances exist in this instance to

13

warrant the appointment of counsel to represent Rhymes at trial. Accordingly, the Court

14

will refer this case to the Pro Bono Program for counsel to be appointed for purposes of

15

trial.

16
17

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff Michael Rhymes’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 64) is granted.

18

It is further ordered that this case is referred to the Pro Bono Program adopted in

19

Amended General Order 2019-07 for the purpose of identifying counsel willing to be

20

appointed as pro bono counsel for Rhymes. The scope of appointment will be for the

21

limited purposes of representing Rhymes at trial. By referring this case to the Program,

22

the Court is not expressing an opinion as to the merits of the case. Accordingly, this case

23

is referred to the Pro Bono Program for appointment of counsel for the purposes as stated

24

herein.

25

It is further order that the Clerk of Court forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison.

26

DATED THIS 20th Day of December 2021.

27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2