Foley v. Stuart

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01874
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 Michael Foley, Case No. 2:20-cv-01874-ART-BNW 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. 7 Georgina Stuart, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 25. 11 Defendant Childs filed a response at ECF No. 29. The Court reviewed the arguments by the 12 parties. Plaintiff has not analyzed the relevant factors under Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 13 Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). As a result, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion 14 without prejudice. Plaintiff can re-file this request (and address the relevant factors) if he so 15 chooses. Nevertheless, as explained below, Plaintiff shall not do so until the Court has resolved 16 the Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 13) pending before it. 17 As alluded to above, the Court is cognizant that Defendant is asking the Court to ascertain 18 who the real party in interest is in this case. As such, the Court finds it proper to await a 19 disposition on that issue before it will entertain a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel. 20 See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (holding that district courts have the 21 inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will 22 promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants). 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Apportionment of Counsel 24 at ECF No. 25 is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any re-filing of the instant motion shall not take place 26 until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 13). 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled on July 26, 2022 is 2 VACATED. 3 DATED: July 15, 2022

4 BRENDA WEKSLER 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27