Johnson v. Southern Desert Correctional Center

— 2 — 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-00232-MMD-DJA 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. — 8 — SOUTHERN DESERT CORRECTIONAL 9 CENTER, et al., 10 Defendants. — 11 — 12 Pro se Plaintiff Lausteveion Johnson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 13 claims arising from the conditions of his confinement while in the custody of the Nevada 14 Department of Corrections. (ECF No. 7.) On September 14, 2020, the Court granted in 15 part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but allowed Johnson’s Eighth 16 Amendment conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to a serious medical 17 need claims to proceed. (ECF No. 46.) On March 28, 2022, the parties attended a 18 settlement conference with U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, but no settlement was 19 reached. (ECF No. 82.) The Court then ordered the parties to file a proposed joint pretrial 20 order by June 21, 2022. (Id.) 21 Since the settlement conference, Johnson has filed six motions, which the Court 22 will now address. Johnson’s first motion requests the Court appoint an expert witness. 23 (ECF No. 81.) To the extent Johnson requests that expert witness fees be paid by the 24 Court, the motion must be denied. “[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an 25 indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress.” Tedder v. Odol, 890 F.2d 26 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 , 321 27 (1976)). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize waiver of witness fees. Id. at — 28 — 2 Johnson’s motion (ECF No. 81) is denied. 3 Second, Johnson moves for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 83.) Because the 4 Court cannot find that “exceptional circumstances” exist in this case that would support 5 requesting pro bono counsel be assigned, the Court will also deny this motion. See Terrell 6 v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that courts may exercise their 7 discretion to request counsel only under “exceptional circumstances”). 8 Next, Johnson’s motion to file a separate proposed pretrial order (ECF No. 84), 9 motion for sanctions (ECF No. 89), and motion for default judgment (ECF No. 90) are 10 also denied. Per Defendants’ response detailing their efforts, the parties appear to be 11 working on their proposed joint pretrial order. (ECF No. 93.) Moreover, even if the Court 12 assumed Defendants were not diligent in meeting the Court’s established deadlines, the 13 sanctions Johnson requests are unreasonable. However, the Court will extend the 14 deadline for the parties to file their proposed joint pretrial order to July 19, 2022, to give 15 the parties sufficient time to finalize their proposed order. 16 Finally, the Court denies Johnson’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement 17 (ECF No. 91) because no settlement agreement was reached (ECF No. 78). 18 It is therefore ordered that Johnson’s motion for the court to pay his expert witness 19 fees (ECF No. 81) is denied. 20 It is further ordered that Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21 83) is denied. 22 It is further ordered that Johnson’s motion to file a separate pretrial order (ECF No. 23 84) is denied. 24 It is further ordered that Johnson’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 89) is denied. 25 It is further ordered that Johnson’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 90) is 26 denied. 27 It is further ordered that Johnson’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement (ECF 28 No. 91) is denied. 1 It is further ordered that the parties’ proposed joint pretrial order is due by July 19. 2 || 2022. 3 DATED THIS 22" Day of June 2022. MIRANDA M. DU 6 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 7 — — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — — 11 — — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —