Walker v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DAVID LEROY WALKER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01462-RFB-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v.

9 KOHL’S INC., ET AL.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief of Funds (ECF No. 15) 13 and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 16), filed on September 30, 2020. The Court 14 carefully considered Plaintiff’s request for relief of funds, but finds it to be without merit. He 15 fails to support it with proper points and authority. Additionally, civil litigants do not have a 16 Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th 17 Cir. 1981). In very limited circumstances, federal courts are empowered to request an attorney to 18 represent an indigent civil litigant. For example, courts have discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 1915(e)(1), to “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of 20 “exceptional circumstances.” Ageyman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 21 (9th Cir. 2004). The circumstances in which a court will make such a request, however, are 22 exceedingly rare and require a finding of extraordinary circumstances. United States v. 30.64 23 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 799-800 (9th Cir. 1986). The difficulties inherent in proceeding pro 24 se do not qualify as exceptional circumstances. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-1336 (9th Cir. 25 1990). Any pro se litigant “would be better served with the assistance of counsel.” Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331). 27 To determine whether the “exceptional circumstances” necessary for appointment of 1 the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claim pro se “in light of the complexity of the legal issues 2 involved.” Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 3 Cir. 1986)). Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together. Wilborn, 4 789 F.2d at 1331. 5 Here, the court does not find any exceptional circumstances. Upon review of Plaintiff’s 6 complaint and supporting documents, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to succeed on 7 the merits. Further, the claims, such as they are, are not complex. The Court will therefore deny 8 the motion. 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief of Funds (ECF No. 10 15) is denied. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF 12 No. 16) is denied. 13 14 DATED: October 13, 2020 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27