Addleman v. King County

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 Plaintiffs’ “Third Motion for Court to Appoint 15 Counsel Due to a Shocking Discovery and Insistance [sic] Plaintiff Meet with Defendants.” Dkt. 16 # 56. 17 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action. Dkt. 18 ## 6, 7. “In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court ‘may request an attorney to 19 represent any person unable to afford counsel.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 20 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Deciding whether to appoint such 21 counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional 22 circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). “A finding of 23 exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits 24 l [and] the ability of the plaintiff to articulate [their] claims pro se given the complexity of the 2 legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting 3 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 4 This is actually the fourth motion requesting the appointment of counsel in this case. See 5 Dkt. ## 19, 31, 34, 56. As before, Plaintiffs have not shown that any exceptional circumstances 6 exist. They have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The legal issues presented ||here do not appear to be particularly complex. 8 For these reasons and for those argued by the King County Defendants, Dkt. # 60, the 9 Court DENIES the motion. 10 Dated this 11th day of September, 2023. 11 Joh. 4. Chua 12 John H.Chun United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24