Pattison v. Lombardo

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 14, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00537
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 DANTE H. PATTISON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00537-ART-CSD 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 JOE LOMBARDO, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 DISCUSSION 8 On February 3, 2023, the Court issued a screening order dismissing the 9 complaint in its entirety without prejudice and with leave to amend for Plaintiff 10 to submit an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure. (ECF No. 6 at 6-7). Plaintiff’s complaint was 63 pages long, included 12 200 pages of exhibits, named 50 defendants, and asserted 8 claims that 13 concerned a range of misconduct from 2015 through the present. (ECF Nos. 6- 14 2, 6-3, 6-4). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 15 an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 8, 9). 16 Later, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the screening order (ECF No. 17 10), a motion for the court to screen his complaint (ECF No. 11), and a motion 18 for appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 12). The first two motions 19 essentially ask the Court to reconsider its screening order and ask the Court to 20 screen his original complaint as drafted. (ECF Nos. 10, 11). Plaintiff argues that 21 the Court is mandated by statute to screen his complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts 22 that the only solution is to appoint him pro bono counsel to make this “extremely 23 complex case go away quickly.” (ECF No. 12 at 9). 24 The Court will address the two motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 10, 25 11) and then the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12). 26 A. Motions for Reconsideration 27 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court 28 1 should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly 2 convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. 3 United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is 4 appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, 5 (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 6 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, 7 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an 8 avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court 9 already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. 10 Nev. 2005). 11 Although the Court recognizes its duty to screen cases under 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915A(a), it is Plaintiff’s duty to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 13 submit a complaint that complies with those rules. Because Plaintiff’s complaint 14 does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as discussed in the 15 original screening order, Plaintiff has not submitted a valid complaint that is 16 subject to screening under § 1915A. Thus, the Court did not commit clear error 17 in its original screening order and the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions for 18 reconsideration (ECF Nos. 10, 11). 19 B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel because he believes 21 his claims will ultimately survive screening. (ECF No. 12 at 9). He further asserts 22 that his deliberate fabrication of evidence, RICO act violations, judicial deception, 23 fraud on the court, attorney crime/fraud, and privilege doctrine claims are too 24 complex for him to understand. (Id. at 10-11). A litigant does not have a 25 constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 26 claims. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any 28 person unable to afford counsel.” However, the court will appoint counsel for 1 indigent civil litigants only in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 2 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action). “When determining whether 3 ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success 4 on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 5 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. “Neither of these 6 considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. 7 In the instant case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances that 8 warrant the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has not submitted an amended 9 complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the 10 Court has not been able to screen any of Plaintiff’s claims to determine a 11 preliminary likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, Plaintiff’s 12 assertations that various legal claims are too complex for him are premature 13 given that they may not survive screening. The Court denies the motion for 14 appointment of counsel without prejudice. 15 CONCLUSION 16 It is therefore ordered that the Court construes the motions for relief from 17 court’s order (ECF No. 10) and the motion to screen (ECF No. 11) as motions for 18 reconsideration. The Court denies the motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 10, 19 11). 20 It is further ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21 12) is denied without prejudice. 22 /// 23 24 /// 25 26 /// 27 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiff will file an amended complaint that 2 || complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before May 15, 2023. If 3 || Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this 4 || case without prejudice. 5 6 DATED THIS 14th day of April 2023. 7 8 9 A os plod jd 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28