Motley v. Silva

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00624
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Courtney Motley, Case No. 2:23-cv-00624-RFB-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Carlos Silva, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Pro Bono Counsel and to Stay the Case, which 11 the Court interprets as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 65. Defendants responded 12 at ECF No. 67. Plaintiff did not reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the 13 motion without prejudice. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting the following constitutional 16 violations: Fourth Amendment false arrest, Fourth Amendment excessive force, Fourth 17 Amendment unreasonable search and seizure, and Fourteenth Amendment racial profiling. He 18 also asserts the following claims under state law: slander, defamation, intentional and negligent 19 infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s claims have been screened. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff is 20 currently incarcerated and brings this motion alleging he has “bipolar depression” and 21 schizophrenia making it difficult for him to articulate his claims. ECF No. 65. 22 Defendant responds asserting Plaintiff’s claims are not overly complex, that he has not 23 demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and that he has not articulated a nexus 24 between his mental health conditions and his ability to articulate his claims. ECF No. 67. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to counsel when asserting 42 1 However, a court may appoint counsel under “exceptional circumstances” in its discretion. 2 Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine whether 3 exceptional circumstances exist, courts must consider “[1] the likelihood of success on the merits 4 as well as [2] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 5 of the legal issues involved.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither prong 6 is dispositive, and both must be considered together. Id. 7 The Ninth Circuit has indicated that plaintiffs demonstrate a likelihood of success where 8 they articulate a cognizable claim for relief. Tilei v. McGuinness, 642 F. App’x 719, 722 (9th Cir. 9 2016). Nevada district courts have found a likelihood of success established where a screening 10 order indicates the plaintiff successfully stated colorable claims. Gardeley v. Dzurenda, No. 3:24- 11 CV-00234-ART-CLB, 2025 WL 635458, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2025). However, the Supreme 12 Court has held there cannot be a likelihood of success where judgment in favor of the Plaintiff 13 would imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 14 (1994). Section 1983 actions “are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of 15 outstanding criminal judgments.” Id. at 486. 16 Whether incarcerated plaintiffs have demonstrated an ability to articulate their claims is 17 fact intensive. Bryson v. Zuniga, No. 2:20-CV-00089-CDS-BNW, 2022 WL 21756792, at *2 (D. 18 Nev. May 23, 2022). Courts look at factors such as a plaintiff’s ability to respond to court 19 directives, understand procedural processes, and articulate claims. See id.; see also Hernandez v. 20 Aranas, No. 2:18-CV-00102-JAD-BNW, 2020 WL 569347, at *6 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2020). 21 Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s 22 complaint has been screened and this Court found he has articulated several cognizable claims. 23 ECF No. 53; Gardeley, 2025 WL 635458, at *1; Tilei v. McGuinness, 642 F. App’x at 722. 24 Although Defendant is correct in noting that Plaintiff’s claims may be precluded to the extent 25 they imply his criminal conviction, Heck will not bar all of the claims at issue in this suit. See 26 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 487. 27 Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to litigate his claims throughout the duration of this 1 || Plaintiff's last motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 46). During the hearing, Plaintiff was 2 || able to articulate his concerns and arguments clearly and was also able to answer questions 3 || regarding the consolidation of cases. Indeed, Plaintiff successfully sought the consolidation of yet 4 |) another case, 2:24-cv-00735-APG-DJA, into this one and an extension of deadlines for service of 5 || process. See Hernandez, 2020 WL 569347, at *6. Lastly, Plaintiff demonstrated the ability to 6 || decipher which defendants should be dismissed from the case. See id. 7 Because Plaintiff has demonstrated the ability to articulate his claims thus far despite any 8 || mental-health condition he may be suffering from, this Court denies the motion without prejudice. 9 || See Bryson, 2022 WL 21756792, at *2. 10 Wl. CONCLUSION 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 12 |} (ECF No. 65) is DENIED without prejudice. 13 14 DATED: April 28, 2025 15 16 KK gn le Went BRENDA WEKSLER 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28