Foley v. Stuart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Michael Foley, Case No. 2:20-cv-01874-ART-BNW Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. Georgina Stuart, et al., Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 25.

Defendant Childs filed a response at ECF No. 29. The Court reviewed the arguments by the parties. Plaintiff has not analyzed the relevant factors under Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). As a result, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Plaintiff can re-file this request (and address the relevant factors) if he so chooses. Nevertheless, as explained below, Plaintiff shall not do so until the Court has resolved the Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 13) pending before it.

As alluded to above, the Court is cognizant that Defendant is asking the Court to ascertain who the real party in interest is in this case. As such, the Court finds it proper to await a disposition on that issue before it will entertain a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel.

See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (holding that district courts have the inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Apportionment of Counsel at ECF No. 25 is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any re-filing of the instant motion shall not take place until the Court has ruled on the Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 13).

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled on July 26, 2022 is VACATED.

3 DATED: July 15, 2022 BRENDA WEKSLER 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE