2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MATHEW HOVIOUS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00594-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NAPHCARE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 Pro se Plaintiff Mathew Hovious, who is now incarcerated at Nevada Southern 12 Detention Center, filed a civil rights complaint under

while he was 13 previously confined at the Washoe County Detention Facility. (ECF No. 7 (“Complaint”).) 14 The Court screened the Complaint, denied Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 15 counsel without prejudice, and found that Plaintiff stated colorable claims against 16 Defendants Jacob Fowler and Naphcare under the Fourteenth Amendment (or 17 alternatively, Eighth Amendment) for inadequate medical treatment. (ECF No. 6.) The 18 Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) re-pleading claims 19 against Washoe County and the forty-one individuals who were listed as Defendants on 20 the Complaint form but not mentioned in the body of the Complaint. (Id.) Now before the 21 Court are Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider the denial of appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22 8) and to extend the time to file an optional FAC (ECF No. 9). 23 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider appointing him a free attorney because his 24 claims have merit, he does not know the next step of this case, and he would like to 25 amend his complaint to include allegations which occurred after the filing of the original 26 complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Reconsideration is only appropriate only if the Court “(1) is 27 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 28 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Smith v. 1 || Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Plaintiff's 2 || stated rationales for reconsideration do not fall into any of these categories, and the Court 3 || still finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances justify the 4 || appointment of counsel at this time. See Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th Cir. 5 || 2009) (setting out the relevant “exceptional circumstances” standard for appointing 6 || counsel). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is thus denied. 7 The Court notes that the next step in this case is for Plaintiff to decide whether to 8 || file an optional FAC. If Plaintiff chooses to file a FAC, then the FAC will replace the original 9 || complaint, and the Court will screen the FAC in a separate order. If Plaintiff chooses not 10 || to file a FAC, then this action will proceed immediately against Defendants Jacob Fowler 11 || and Naphcare, and the Court will enter a separate order regarding service upon those 12 || two Defendants. 13 Plaintiff also asks the Court for an extension of 30 to 60 days to file a FAC. (ECF 14 || No. 9.) The Court grants Plaintiff a 30-day extension, so the new deadline for Plaintiff to 15 || file an optional FAC is August 29, 2025. As noted above, any FAC that Plaintiff files will 16 || replace the original complaint and be screened in a separate screening order. 17 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiffs motion to reconsider the appointment of 18 || counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs motion to extend the time to file a FAC (ECF No. 20 || 9) is granted. The deadline for Plaintiff to file an optional FAC is August 29, 2025. 21 It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff chooses not to file a FAC, this action will proceed 22 || immediately on the Fourteenth Amendment (or alternatively, Eighth Amendment) claims 23 || for inadequate medical treatment against Defendants Jacob Fowler and Naphcare. 24 DATED THIS 29" Day of July 2025.

26 MIRANDA M. DU 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28