Keller v. Johnson et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/10/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

CHRISTOPHER KELLER,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

Case No. 3:23-CV-00435-CLB

v.
CALVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
AND/OR FOR A CONTINUANCE
[ECF No. 31]

Defendants.

9
10

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Keller’s (“Keller”) motion for appointment

11

of counsel and/or for a continuance. (ECF No. 31.) For the reasons discussed below, the

12

motion is denied.

13

I.

DISCUSSION

14

Keller’s motion seems to assert that he has been having difficulty getting discovery

15

responses from Defendants and this is the basis for requesting counsel and/or a

16

continuance. (See ECF No. 31.) However, Keller’s motion does not address any of the

17

factors related to appointment of counsel, or for an extension of time.

18

To the extent Keller is requesting appointment of counsel, the request is denied.

19

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. E.g., Rand v.

20

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion reinstated in pertinent part, 154

21

F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) gives

22

the court discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford

23

counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see, e.g., Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

24

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). While the decision to request counsel lies within the discretion

25

of the district court, the court may exercise this discretion to request counsel only under

26

“exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

27

Keller does not provide any argument to support his request for counsel, except to state

28

he is having difficulties with discovery, which is insufficient and does not constitute

1

exceptional circumstances. (See ECF No. 31.)

2

As to Keller’s general request for a “continuance,” the Court interprets this as a

3

request to extend discovery deadlines in this case. (See id.) On December 23, 2024, the

4

Court granted another motion to extend time filed by Keller and noted explicitly that “No

5

further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.” (ECF No.

6

28 (emphasis in original).) Keller has not shown that extraordinary circumstances exist to

7

further extend discovery, which is set to close on May 19, 2025. Therefore, this request

8

is also denied.

9

II.

10
11
12

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Keller’s motion for appointment of counsel

and/or for a continuance, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED.
March 10, 2025
DATED: __________________

13
14
15

______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2