Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02289-RFB-VCF
09-29-2017
AMANDA LEA SEXTON, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, who is an inmate in the custody of the Clark County Detention Center ("CCDC"), is awaiting the screening of her third amended complaint (ECF No. 8). In the meantime, Plaintiff has filed multiple miscellaneous motions that the Court will address now.
A. Filing Fee Motions
Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike her application to proceed in forma pauperis because she has paid the $350 filing fee. (ECF No. 9 at 1). On November 18, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed her to pay the $350 filing fee when she had the funds. (See ECF No. 5 at 17). Plaintiff has fulfilled the payment obligation. The Court denies the motion to strike. / / / / / /
The Court also denies Plaintiff's motion to direct the Clerk of the Court to file her amended complaint. (ECF No. 10). The Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to file the amended complaint when procedurally applicable to do so.
B. Service Motions
Plaintiff has filed two motions related to service (ECF No. 12, 19). The Court denies these motions without prejudice as procedurally premature. The Court will order service when procedurally applicable.
C. Inmate-to-Inmate Correspondence Motions
Plaintiff has filed seven motions related to seeking an order directing CCDC personnel to permit her to correspond with another inmate, Toney White, while in custody. (See ECF No. 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22). Court denies these motions without prejudice at this time. Given the volume of motions being filed, the Court will set a status conference in this case to set an orderly schedule for the filing of motions and to set parameters on what motion can be appropriately filed.
D. Motions for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20, 23). A litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), "[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, the court will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in "exceptional circumstances." Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action). "When determining whether 'exceptional circumstances' exist, a court must consider 'the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Id. "Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together." Id. In the instant case, the Court does not find exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel. The Court denies the motions for appointment of counsel.
E. Motion for Court Action
Plaintiff has filed a motion for court action to screen her third amended complaint and to address her outstanding motions. (ECF No. 27). The Court denies the motion as moot. Plaintiff's third amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is in line for screening. The screening process will take several months. The Court notes that the continuous filing of miscellaneous motions in this case increases the Court's caseload and does not permit the Court to screen Plaintiff's third amended complaint any sooner.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons noted,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike (ECF No. 9) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to direct clerk to file complaint (ECF No. 10) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to add assisting inmate to transaction service list (ECF No. 11) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions directing inmate-to-inmate correspondence (ECF No. 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22) are denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions related to service (ECF No. 12, 19) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20, 23) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for court action (ECF No. 27) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status hearing is set for October 13, 2017 at 2:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7D.
DATED: September 29, 2017.
/s/_________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE