Harris v. Daniels

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Ammar Harris, Case No: 2:22-cv-00293-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff,

v. 6 Order Denying Motion for a Pre-Trial

Conference and Overruling Objections 7 Charles Daniels, et al., [ECF Nos. 75, 77, 87] 8 Defendants

9 10 Pro se plaintiff Ammar Harris brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he allegedly suffered while he was incarcerated by the 12 Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). He objects to two orders issued by Magistrate 13 Judge Nancy J. Koppe (ECF Nos. 77, 87) and moves for a pretrial conference (ECF No. 75). I first 14 address Harris’s objections, which I overrule, and then I deny his motion for a pretrial 15 conference. 16 I. Harris’s objections to the magistrate judge’s orders are overruled. 17 Harris objects to two different orders. First, he objects to the magistrate judge’s order 18 denying his motion for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 74, 77. Second, Harris objects to the 19 magistrate judge’s order denying his motions to amend. ECF Nos. 85, 87. This district’s local 20 rules provide that any party wishing to object to a magistrate judge’s order on a pretrial matter 21 must file and serve specific written objections, and the deadline to file and serve any objections 22 to a magistrate judge’s order is 14 days after service of the order. LR IB 3-1. A district judge may 23 reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case under LR 24 IB 1-3, when it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary 25 to law. 26 1 Harris timely filed both objections, but both fail to demonstrate that the magistrate 2 judge committed clear error or that her decision was contrary to the law. Courts must liberally 3 construe documents filed by pro se litigants and afford them the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. 4 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Even a liberal construction of Harris’s objections, 5 however, does not demonstrate that either order was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. 6 a. Harris’s objection to the order denying his motion for appointment of counsel fails to demonstrate 7 that the order commits clear error or contravenes the law. 8 Harris objects to the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel by citing Federal 9 Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) and various cases that discuss the competency of witnesses. But 10 Harris fails to articulate how those rules or cases demonstrate that the magistrate judge’s order 11 was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Judge Koppe’s order correctly found that 12 appointment of counsel may be warranted in some cases when a plaintiff suffers a mental 13 disability, but Harris’s case history shows that he is able to litigate his case successfully, and he 14 did not demonstrate a nexus between his “traumatic brain injury” and an inability to litigate his 15 claims.1 ECF No. 74 at 2. 16 Harris also poses a “question of law” to this court as to whether he may present affidavits 17 regarding his competency and whether he may sign a legally binding agreement. See ECF No. 77 18 at 3. But this is an improper request for relief. A federal district court judge cannot advise pro se 19 litigants or issue advisory opinions. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (requiring district 20 courts to advise pro se litigants “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial 21 decisionmakers”); Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct. 493, 498 (2020) (Article III of the U.S. Constitution 22 prevents “federal courts from issuing advisory opinions”). Thus, I cannot answer Harris’s 23 question. Further, Harris’s request does not demonstrate that the magistrate judge’s order was 24 contrary to the law or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, I overrule Harris’s objections and affirm 25 Judge Koppe’s order denying Harris’s motion for appointment of counsel in full. ECF No. 74. 26

1 His objections are further evidence of his ability to understand the rules and to continue proceeding pro se. 1 b. Harris’s objection to the order denying his motion to amend fails to demonstrate that the order 2 commits clear error or contravenes the law. 3 Harris objects to the order denying his motion to amend, but that objection also fails to 4 demonstrate that the magistrate judge’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Harris 5 asserts that the magistrate judge “circumvented laws and rules to deny his ability to bring” 6 claims in an unrelated case. ECF No. 87 at 3. But the objection does not identify what laws were 7 circumvented or how, nor does it address how decisions in an unrelated case render the order in 8 this case erroneous or contrary to the law. Moreover, the objection, much like the underlying 9 filing, fails to address how the magistrate judge erred in denying amendment when Harris was 10 ordered to file an amended complaint by July 5, 2022, and he failed to do. Harris is reminded that 11 pro se litigants must still follow this district’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 13 Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, I overrule Harris’s objections 14 and affirm Judge Koppe’s order denying Harris’s motion to amend in full. ECF No. 87. 15 II. Harris’s motion for pre-trial conference is denied. 16 Harris also moves for a pre-trial conference. ECF No. 75. This district’s local rules state 17 that unless ordered otherwise, the court will not conduct a pre-trial conference. LR 16-2. They 18 also provide that a “party may at any time make a written request for a pretrial conference to 19 expedite disposition of any case, particularly one that is complex or in which there has been 20 delay.” Id. But Harris does not identify any particular complexity or delay in this case that might 21 warrant a pre-trial conference. See generally ECF No. 75. He does, however, request the conference 22 for purposes of “facilitating settlement, obtaining admissions and stipulations[,] . . . and 23 scheduling the filing of any pretrial briefs.” Id. at 1. I thus direct the parties to meet and confer 24 regarding potential settlement of this action or to create a joint pre-trial statement that sets 25 forth the information required by Local Rules 16-3(b) and 16-4. 26 1 III. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Harris’s motion for a pre-trial conference [ECF No. 3 75] is denied without prejudice. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harris’s objections [ECF No. 77] to the magistrate 5 judge’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel are overruled. The order [ECF No. 6 74] is affirmed in full. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harris’s objections [ECF No. 87] to the magistrate 8 judge’s order denying his untimely motion for amendment to the complaint are overruled. The 9 order [ECF No. 85] is affirmed in full. 10 DATED: May 25, 2023 11 ________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 12 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26