Baker v. Avenue5 Residential

W.D. Washington

Baker v. Avenue5 Residential

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided October 19, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01207·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JUSTIN BAKER, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01207-RSL 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 6, has been referred to the 14 undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 14 15 There is no right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th 16 Cir. 1998). A court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(1), but only if there are “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 18 of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, 19 the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 20 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt 21 v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Plaintiff has not shown there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant appointment of 23 counsel. Plaintiff’s claims revolve around allegations against the owner of the building in which 1 he currently resides. Plaintiff sued the prior owner of this building alleging various violations of 2 federal law. See Baker v. Thrive Communities, 22-872-LK. He now sues the current owner of the 3 building again raising various violations of federal law. Plaintiff’s past case and the present case 4 demonstrate he has the ability to sufficiently articulate his claims and to present his case.

5 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the earlier suit he brought against Thrive, after Defendants filed a 6 motion to dismiss, and there is presently insufficient information to conclude Plaintiff’s present 7 claims have a strong likelihood of success. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 8 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 6, is DENIED. 9 (2) The Clerk shall provide the parties with a copy of this Order. 10 DATED this 19th day of October, 2023. 11 A 12 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JUSTIN BAKER, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01207-RSL 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 11 AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 6, has been referred to the 14 undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 14 15 There is no right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th 16 Cir. 1998). A court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(1), but only if there are “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 18 of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, 19 the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 20 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt 21 v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Plaintiff has not shown there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant appointment of 23 counsel. Plaintiff’s claims revolve around allegations against the owner of the building in which 1 he currently resides. Plaintiff sued the prior owner of this building alleging various violations of 2 federal law. See Baker v. Thrive Communities, 22-872-LK. He now sues the current owner of the 3 building again raising various violations of federal law. Plaintiff’s past case and the present case 4 demonstrate he has the ability to sufficiently articulate his claims and to present his case.

5 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the earlier suit he brought against Thrive, after Defendants filed a 6 motion to dismiss, and there is presently insufficient information to conclude Plaintiff’s present 7 claims have a strong likelihood of success. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 8 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 6, is DENIED. 9 (2) The Clerk shall provide the parties with a copy of this Order. 10 DATED this 19th day of October, 2023. 11 A 12 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Baker v. Avenue5 Residential, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Baker v. Avenue5 Residential (Baker v. Avenue5 Residential) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related