Addleman v. King County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 24, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00286
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 LINCOLN LANE ADDLEMAN JR. et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00286 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lincoln Lane Addleman, Jr.’s “Rule 12 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel at Public Expense.” Dkts. ## 19, 20. The motion is noted for May 16 5, 2023, but no defendants have appeared in the matter thus far, and there is no reason for the 17 Court to wait further to rule on it. 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action. Dkts. 19 ## 6, 7. “In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court ‘may request an attorney to 20 represent any person unable to afford counsel.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 21 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Deciding whether to appoint such 22 counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 23 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of 24 l exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 2 and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate their claims pro se given the complexity of the legal 3 issues involved. Wilborn vy. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 4 Plaintiff has not shown that any exceptional circumstances exist for the appointment of 5 counsel. Up until this point, Plaintiff has not established an inability to articulate the bases of his 6 claims without the assistance of counsel. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. And the legal issues 7 ||presented here, though not fully defined or clear at this point, do not appear to be particularly 8 complex. See id. Further, any inability to obtain counsel because of cost or lack of availability 9 is not an exceptional circumstance requiring the appointment of counsel. See Wood v. || Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has likewise not demonstrated a 11 likelihood of success on the merits. And at this early stage of litigation, the record is not 12 sufficiently developed for the Court to make such a determination. 13 This case does not, at this time, present the requisite extraordinary circumstances for the 14 appointment of counsel. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice. Plaintiffs 15 may renew this motion later in the proceedings if exceptional circumstances warrant the 16 appointment of counsel. 17 Dated this 24th day of April, 2023. 4, Chae 19 John H. Chun United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24