Morelock v. Yap

1 UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * Lawrence Morelock, Case No. 2:22-cv-01936-RFB-BNW 5 Plaintiff, Order 6 v. Charmaine Yap, et al., 8 Defendants.

10 Plaintiff, Lawrence Morelock, has filed multiple complaints with this Court. ECF Nos. 1- 1, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 12, 19. The complaints overlap with each other, refer to different incidents, and include appeals to several courts. This Court has noted the problems with Mr. Morelock’s complaints and has provided instructions to him in hopes that a proper complaint would be filed. ECF Nos. 8, 14. Unfortunately, it appears there may be more than one claim and that these claims may be against different agencies. In addition, it appears the procedural posture of each of these claims may be different (some are being appealed, and some are not). In short, it is not clear to this Court what the nature of Mr. Morelock’s complaint is, and, as a result, it cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction over this case.

19 Given this, as discussed below, this Court will appoint counsel in this case for the limited purpose of determining whether a complaint needs to be filed in the District Court for the District of Nevada and if so, for counsel to draft the complaint for Mr. Morelock.

22 Given the information above, this Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the appointment of counsel. To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must consider: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) the ability of the petitioner to articulate their claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

27 This Court has no ability to determine, at this stage, the likelihood of success on the merits bono counsel to represent Plaintiff in 30 days unless Mr. Morelock declares his desire that the Court not appoint counsel.

3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be referred to the Pro Bono Program for appointment of counsel for the purposes identified herein, unless Plaintiff notifies the Court that he does not desire appointment of counsel.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until April 23, 2023, to notify the Court if he does not desire appointment of counsel.

8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Morelock’s new deadline for filing a complaint shall be June 23, 2023.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this Court’s previous instructions may result in the dismissal of this case.

15 DATED: March 23, 2023 BRENDA WEKSLER 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE