Cranford v. State of Nevada

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 KEISHAWN CRANFORD, Case No. 3:21-CV-00386-CLB 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 6 v. [ECF Nos. 62] 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Defendants. [9] 10 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Keishawn Cranford’s (“Cranford’s”) 11 motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 37.) Having considered Cranford’s motion 12 and the docket in this case, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist that 13 support the appointment of counsel and therefore grants Cranford’s motion. 14 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. E.g., Rand 15 v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), opinion reinstated in pertinent part, 154 16 F.3d 952 , 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The provision in 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(1) gives 17 the court discretion to “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 18 counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1); see, e.g., Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 , 1331 19 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc.) While the decision to request counsel lies within the discretion 20 of the district court, the court may exercise this discretion to request counsel only under 21 “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 22 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to evaluate (1) the 23 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his 24 claims pro se considering the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. (quoting Wilborn, [25] 789 F.2d at 1331 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither factor is dispositive, and 26 both factors must be considered before a court decides. Id. The difficulties every litigant 27 faces when proceeding pro se does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance. Wood v. 1 would benefit from the assistance of competent counsel, such a benefit does not rise to 2 the level of “exceptional circumstances.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 . Rather, the plaintiff 3 must demonstrate that he is unable to articulate his claims due to their complexity. Id. 4 Having considered Cranford’s motion and the docket in this case, the Court finds 5 that exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel. Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 . 6 First, this case is based on allegations of excessive force, and if the allegations are 7 believed by a jury, Cranford may succeed on the merits. In addition, this case involves a 8 claim of deliberate indifference to medical treatment necessitated from the alleged 9 excessive force incident. Cranford asserts that his injuries were significant and included 10 some hearing loss. In his motion, he explains that these claims will require extensive 11 discovery, the use of medical experts, and skills at trial that he does not possess. He also 12 asserts that his ability to conduct discovery, investigations, and litigant this case are 13 hampered by the fact that he is currently housed in administrative segregation. Taking all 14 of these facts and circumstances into account, the Court finds that Cranford has shown 15 that exceptional circumstances exist here. 16 The Court therefore grants Cranford’s motion for appointment of counsel, (ECF 17 No. 62), and stays this case in its entirety until pro bono counsel is identified and formally 18 appointed. In addition, this case is referred to the Pro Bono Program adopted in the 19 Amended General Order 2019-07 for the purpose of identifying counsel willing to be 20 appointed as pro bono counsel for Cranford. By referring this case to the Program, the 21 Court is not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cranford’s motion for appointment of 23 counsel, (ECF No. 62), is GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to the Pro Bono Program for 25 appointment of counsel for the purposes identified herein. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall also forward this order to the Pro 27 Bono Liaison. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is stayed in its entirety until pro bono counsel is identified and formally appointed in this case. 3| DATED: July 21, 2023 4 Bl ces 5 UNITED SKATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE