Burton v. Spring Mountain Treatment Center ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Ariana Burton, Case No. 2:24-cv-00449-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Spring Mountain Treatment Center, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Ariana Burton has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 13 No. 4) and a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s application has 14 conflicting information and is incomplete. (ECF No. 4). She states that she is incarcerated at the 15 “Las Vegas Prison” in response to question 1 but then circles that she is not incarcerated but is 16 self employed in response to question 2. (Id. at 1). She then checks the box that she has received 17 income from her self-employment in response to question 3, but lists that she has made no money 18 in response to question 2. (Id.). In response to question 4, asking for the amount of money she 19 has in a checking or savings account, Plaintiff responds, “not saying.” (Id. at 2). In response to 20 question 5, plaintiff asserts that her car was totaled, but the remainder of her response is illegible. 21 (Id.). Plaintiff does not list her monthly expenses in response to question 6 and does not list the 22 amounts of her debts in response to question 8. (Id.). Plaintiff has not fully answered the 23 questions asked. The Court thus denies her application without prejudice. 24 The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. Courts have 25 authority to request that an attorney represent any person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(e)(1). Whether to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court and requires 27 a showing of exceptional circumstances. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1 consider the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits as well as the plaintiff’s ability 2 to articulate his claims “in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. Neither 3 factor is dispositive, and both must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 4 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 5 Here, Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances for the appointment of counsel. 6 It is not clear that Plaintiff’s complaint will succeed on the merits because it has not passed 7 screening. Additionally, Plaintiff’s only argument regarding the difficulty that she has had 8 pursuing this case is that she has no money and because she believes her case has merit. But 9 these issues are true of every indigent litigant seeking counsel. And Plaintiff’s case has not 10 proceeded to the screening stage for the Court to determine if she is able to articulate her claims. 11 The Court thus denies her motion for appointment of counsel. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (ECF No. 4) is denied. Plaintiff must file a renewed application on or before June 10, 15 2024. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the short form non-inmate 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 18 No. 5) is denied. 19 20 DATED: May 10, 2024 21 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27