Wallace v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

2 3 6 FLOYD WALLACE, 7 Case No. 2:23-cv-00809-APG-NJK Plaintiff(s), v. 9 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE [Docket Nos. 23, 24] 10 DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel or refer him to the pro 13 bono program. Docket No. 23. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay the 14 case pending that appointment or referral. Docket No. 24. Plaintiff represents that Defendants do 15 not oppose the requests. See, e.g., id. at 2. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. 16 See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons stated below, the motions are both DENIED. 17 A civil litigant does not have a constitutional right to counsel. See Storseth v. Spellman, 18 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Nonetheless, “[t]he court may request an attorney to 19 represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).1 The Court will do so in 20 “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In this case, 21 Plaintiff paid the filing fee, see Docket No. 4, and has made no showing that he is unable to afford 22 counsel. The Court has also not been persuaded that exceptional circumstances exist, either with 23 respect to Plaintiff’s abilities to articulate his positions or his likelihood of success on the merits. 24 25 1 The Court lacks the authority to compel an attorney appointment in this context. Mallard 26 v. United States Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989). Hence, “the statute does not actually authorize the court to force a lawyer to take a case” and the Court does not have “staff 27 attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants.” Chan v. Ryan, 2023 WL 197429, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) (quoting Sifuentes v. Nautilus, Inc., 2022 WL 1014963, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 28 Apr. 5, 2022)). 1} See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. As such, the Court will not “appoint” counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 3 The Court may refer a pro se party to the pro bono program. See Sec. Amended Gen. Order 4] 2019-07. Such a referral is highly discretionary and turns on some of the same considerations 5], addressed above, including the inability to retain counsel by other means, the potential merits of 6] the claims, and the capability of the movant to present the case. See, e.g., id. at 4. The Court 7|| declines to make such a referral in this case in considering the various factors. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel or refer him to the pro bono program is 9| DENIED. The motion to stay the case is DENIED as moot. 11 Dated: August 16, 2023 2 es a Nancy J. Ko 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28