Jeff Glover v. C/O Canute C. Brown, et al.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 Jeff Glover, Case No. 2:24-cv-00596-JAD-NJK

6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 7 v. [Docket No. 35]

8 C/O Canute C. Brown, et al., 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Docket No. 35.1 11 A litigant does not have a constitutional right to counsel to pursue civil rights claims. See 12 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). “The court may request2 an attorney 13 to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Court will request 14 an attorney for indigent civil litigants in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 15 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The word “exceptional” is defined as “out of the ordinary course, 16 unusual,” or “rare.” See Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford Univ. Press 2015). Representations 17 of an inability to retain counsel, as well as “[c]ircumstances common to most prisoners, such as 18 lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances 19 that warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.” E.g., Boyd v. Henry, No. 2:23-cv- 20 01022-CDS-MDC, 2024 WL 4046456, at *5 (D. Nev. May 9, 2024) ((quoting Baker v. Macomber, 21 No. 2:15-cv-00248-TLN-AC, 2020 WL 1182495, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020)). When 22 determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court considers the plaintiff’s likelihood 23 of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 24 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, particularly those who are 25 prisoners bringing civil rights claims. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). 26 2 To be clear, the Court does not “appoint” counsel in civil cases. The law “does not actually authorize the court to force a lawyer to take a case” and the Court does not have “staff 27 attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants.” Chan v. Ryan, 2023 WL 197429, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) (quoting Sifuentes v. Nautilus, Inc., 2022 WL 1014963, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 28 Apr. 5, 2022)). 1 complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. “Neither of these considerations 2 is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. 3 Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances here. While Plaintiff has stated 4 colorable claims sufficiently to proceed past the pleading stage, Plaintiff has not yet demonstrated 5 that evidence shows a likelihood to succeed on the merits of those claims. Cf. Hucker v. Daub, 6 No. 21-cv-577 JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 2550089, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2021) (collecting cases 7 that stating a colorable claim is not, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of 8 success on the merits). The claims in this case address alleged failure to protect Plaintiff and 9 alleged delay in medical care. See Docket No. 7. While the allegations are no doubt very serious, 10 they do not appear to be complex in nature. Moreover, Plaintiff has thus far shown a sufficient 11 ability to articulate claims and arguments without the assistance of counsel. Indeed, this very 12 motion is supported by Plaintiff’s use of the law library and legal research efforts. See Docket No. 13 35 at 3 (citing Figueroa v. Gill, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 121404 (D. Nev. June 24, 2025)). Despite 14 Plaintiff’s obvious abilities to articulate his claims and arguments, he contends that counsel should 15 be appointed because he has been unable to serve Defendants Brown and Ruiz. It is common for 16 a prisoner to have difficulty serving a former prison employee when the Nevada Department of 17 Corrections has provided a last known address at which service was not successful.3 Such a 18 common scenario is not an exceptional circumstance and, indeed, permitting appointment of 19 counsel in that circumstance would grind the voluminous prisoner civil rights docket to a halt. 20 21 22 23 3 The case cited by Plaintiff is not applicable here. That case involved claims against 24 officers with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which apparently refused to accept service without the prisoner providing a badge number for the defendants and service had been 25 attempted at a location that was not really “a physical address for anything.” See Figueroa, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 121404, at *3-4. Hence, that case involved “procedural irregularities” and 26 “oversights.” See id. at *6. The circumstances of this case are different. The Nevada Attorney General’s Office identified the two defendants at issue and provided their last known address so 27 that service could be attempted. See Docket No. 16. Service was then attempted at those addresses, but service could not be effectuated because these defendants had moved. See Docket 28 Nos. 22, 23. In short, this case does not include irregularities regarding service. ] Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to appoint counsel. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: March 9, 2026

Nancy JKoppe 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 28