Hintze v. Sisolak ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JASON HINTZE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00436-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STEVE SISOLAK, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jason Hintze’s objection to Magistrate Judge 12 Carla Baldwin’s order (ECF No. 46) denying Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment 13 of guardian ad litem and/or counsel. (ECF No. 47 (“Objection”).) The Court has also 14 reviewed Defendants’ response (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff previously filed two motions for 15 appointment of guardian ad litem and/or counsel (ECF Nos. 1-2, 15), each of which were 16 denied (ECF Nos. 6, 16). Because Judge Baldwin’s pretrial ruling was not clearly 17 erroneous or contrary to law, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection. 18 Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court 19 review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 20 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial 21 matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case under LR IB 1-3, where it 22 has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to 23 law.”). In his Objection, Plaintiff argues that Judge Baldwin erred in failing to find that a 24 competency hearing is warranted in this action. (ECF No. 47 at 3.) Specifically, he argues 25 that Judge Baldwin failed to review the mental health records submitted as a sealed 26 exhibit to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40-1), and that these 27 records create at least a substantial question as to Plaintiff’s competency. (ECF No. 47 1 marks and citation omitted) (“Ordinarily, when a substantial question exists regarding the 2 mental competence of a party proceeding pro se, the proper procedure is for the district 3 court to conduct a hearing to determine competence, so a guardian ad litem can be 4 appointed, if necessary.”); Dillingham v. Emerson, Case No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB, 5 2020 WL 7050032, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2020) (noting that “in the absence of 6 verifiable evidence of incompetence, there is no substantial question” to decide in a 7 competency hearing). Here, the Court finds that Judge Baldwin did not err in determining 8 that a competency hearing is unwarranted. While Plaintiff states that “[n]owhere in [her] 9 order does the magistrate judge reference the mental health records” (ECF No. 47 at 3), 10 Judge Baldwin in fact specifically discusses the records and notes that they are 11 inadequate to satisfy Plaintiff’s burden, given that they do not support his inability to 12 comprehend or participate in Court (ECF No. 46 at 2). Upon review of the relevant mental 13 health records, the Court agrees that Judge Baldwin made a reasonable determination 14 as to Plaintiff’s capacity for comprehension. 15 Plaintiff does not object to the portion of Judge Baldwin’s ruling that pertains 16 specifically to appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 46 at 2-3.) See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 17 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that appointment of counsel is appropriate in only 18 “exceptional circumstances”). For this reason, and because Plaintiff has failed to 19 otherwise show exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel, the Court 20 does not disturb Judge Baldwin’s ruling. See LR IB 1-3. 21 Finally, Plaintiff notes that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22 38) is currently pending before the Court, and that Plaintiff’s response deadline is set for 23 May 16, 2024. (ECF No. 47 at 5.) Hintz requests that the Court stay briefing on 24 Defendants’ motion, pending resolution of his Objection. (Id.) The Court will extend the 25 deadline for Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for 30 days. 26 The new response deadline is June 17, 2024. 27 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 47) to Judge Baldwin’s 28 order is overruled. 1 It is further ordered that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ 2 || motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 38) is extended until June 17, 2024. 3 DATED THIS 13" Day of May 2024. An 5 MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28