Hintze v. Sisolak ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 JASON HINTZE, Case No. 3:22-CV-00436-MMD-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 6 v. COUNSEL FOR LIMITED PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS 7 STEVE SISOLAK, et. al., [ECF No. 56] 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Hintze’s motion for appointment of counsel for 11 the limited purpose of settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 56.) For the reasons discussed 12 below, the motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF No. 56), is denied. 13 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. E.g., Rand 14 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion reinstated in pertinent part, 154 15 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The provision in 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) gives 16 the court discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 17 counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see, e.g., Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 18 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc.) While the decision to request counsel lies within the discretion 19 of the district court, the court may exercise this discretion to request counsel only under 20 “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to evaluate (1) the 22 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his 23 claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. 24 Id. (quoting Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither factor 25 is dispositive, and both factors must be considered before a court decides. Id. The 26 difficulties every litigant faces when proceeding pro se does not qualify as an exceptional 27 circumstance. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). While 1 a benefit does not rise to the level of “exceptional circumstances.” Rand, 113 F.3d at ? 1525. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he is unable to articulate his claims due to their complexity. /d. 4 The motion for appointment of counsel requests appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff states his case is 6 | exception as he survived summary judgment and “the district judge overruled the magistrate judge’s Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 54) sua sponte.” (/d. at 2.) 8 Plaintiff further states that there is a reasonable probability that he will succeed on the 9 merits of his claims and the case is complex. (/d. at 3.) 10 The enumerated reasons that Plaintiff claims warrant counsel do not rise to the 14 level of exception circumstances. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case is complex, 40 and in fact, his claims do not involve particularly complex issues, nor will they require 13 expert assistance to understand. Moreover, throughout the pendency of this action, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can articulate his claims to the Court. To the extent " Plaintiff contends that he has limited knowledge in these types of proceedings, such lack " of education and experience is unexceptional compared to most prisoner civil rights 16 cases. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, 7 the Court DENIES the motion. (ECF No. 56.) 18 DATED: October 15, 2024 19 » 20 21 UNITED Sigh JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28