Keller v. Johnson

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 CHRISTOPHER KELLER, Case No. 3:23-CV-00435-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 v. AND/OR FOR A CONTINUANCE

7 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., [ECF No. 31]

8 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 1| exceptional circumstances. (See ECF No. 31.) 2 As to Keller’s general request for a “continuance,” the Court interprets this as a 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 is also denied. Il. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Keller's motion for appointment of counsel 11 and/or for a continuance, (ECF No. 31), is DENIED. 12 DATED: March 10, 2025 13 .

14 45 UNITED\STATE$ MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28