Riggs v. Sisolak

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 13, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00465
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DANIEL RIGGS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00465-MMD-CSD

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 STEVE SISOLAK, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 9 On January 3, 2023, the Court issued a screening order and granted Plaintiff until 10 February 3, 2023, to file an amended complaint or the case would proceed only on the 11 Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. (ECF No. 3 at 14-15). The Court 12 also denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem 13 and/or counsel. (Id. at 13). Plaintiff has now filed a second motion for appointment of 14 counsel (ECF No. 6) and a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file his amended 15 complaint. (ECF No. 7). In support of his extension motion, Plaintiff states that he needs 16 “additional time to research and draft the amended complaint.” (ECF No. 7). 17 The Court denies Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel without 18 prejudice. A litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 1983 19 actions. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to 21 afford counsel.” However, the court will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in 22 “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 23 action). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must 24 consider the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to 25 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. 26 “Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. 27 As the Court explained in its screening order, Plaintiff has failed to identify exceptional 28 circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. (ECF No. 3 at 13). 1 The Court grants Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff will file the 2 | amended complaint on or before March 6, 2023. If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint, this action will proceed only on the Eighth Amendment conditions-of- confinement claim. (ECF No. 3 at 14-15). 5 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion for 6 | appointment of counsel (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is granted. Plaintiff will file his amended complaint onor before March 6, 2023. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely file his amended 11 | complaint, this action will proceed only on the Eighth Amendment conditions-of- 12 | confinement claim. 13 DATED THIS 13th day of January 2023. CS By 15 UNITED STATES MA RATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-