Hymon v. Clark County Detention Center ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 RODERICK L. HYMON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01918-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v. 6 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER., 7 Defendant. 8 9 I. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this case be consolidated with five other 11 cases, and that an attorney be appointed to negotiate a settlement of all six cases on his 12 behalf. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s motion does not include any factual details or arguments 13 to support his requests. 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that a court may consolidate the 15 actions if the actions “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). 16 A litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983 civil rights claims. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any 19 person unable to afford counsel.” However, the court will appoint counsel for indigent civil 20 litigants only in “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 21 Cir. 2009) (§ 1983 action). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, 22 a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 23 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 24 involved.” Id. 25 Plaintiff does not argue that the cases he wishes to consolidate involve a common 26 question of law or fact. Rather, it appears that he is seeking to consolidate these cases 27 solely for the purposes of a global settlement. Furthermore, several of the cases have 1 Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel does not include any details or argument to support appointment of counsel, and the motion appears to be based solely on the convenience of having an attorney negotiate a global settlement, rather than 4|| Plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims. This case is still at the screening stage, but an initial review of the complaint does not support the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Furthermore, several of Plaintiff's cases have 7|| already been dismissed for failure to file an updated address, and this case will also be || subject to dismissal unless Plaintiff files an updated address. (ECF No. 5). 9 Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to consolidate cases and appoint counsel to negotiate asettlement (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff files an updated address, 11|| he may file a renewed motion to either consolidate cases or appoint counsel, explaining 12|| why the request should be granted. Il. CONCLUSION 14 Therefore, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to consolidate cases and appoint counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 16 17 DATED THIS 28th day of August 2024. OAD J? J 18 io fr \ 4 if 19 Hor Maxinfang Coolie TT 20 UNITED STATE GISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28