Brown v. Metro Police

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Jessica M. Brown, Case No. 2:24-cv-00405-JAD-DJA Plaintiff, 7 Order v. Metro Police; Rape Investigators, Defendants.

12 Florence McClure Women’s Correctional Center inmate, Plaintiff Jessica M. Brown, submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint. (ECF Nos. 6, 1-1). The Court granted that application. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff has now filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7), a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8), and a motion to extend time (ECF No. 9).

17 I. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

18 Because the Court has already granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, it denies her subsequent application as moot. (ECF No. 7).

20 II. Plaintiffs’ motions for appointment of counsel and to extend time.

21 Courts have authority to request that an attorney represent any person unable to afford counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Whether to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court and requires a showing of exceptional circumstances. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, courts consider the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits as well as the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims “in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. Neither factor is dispositive, and both must be viewed together. Wilborn v. 1 Here, Plaintiff has not shown exceptional circumstances for the appointment of counsel.

2 As outlined in the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 10), it is not clear that Plaintiff’s complaint will succeed on the merits because it has not passed screening. Additionally, while Plaintiff has had difficulty following the Court’s instructions, she was able to file a complete application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The Court thus denies her motion for appointment of counsel.

7 Plaintiff also asks that the Court extend time. But it is unclear what deadline she seeks to extend. The Court thus denies this request.

10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied.

14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension (ECF No. 9) is denied.

17 DATED: April 17, 2024 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE