Baker v. New Hanover Regional Hospital

W.D. Washington

Baker v. New Hanover Regional Hospital

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided August 9, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00821·Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 JUSTIN BAKER, Case No. C22-821-RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. 13 NEW HANOVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Justin Baker’s Motion to Appoint 17 Counsel. Dkt. #7. Mr. Baker filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. #1. 18 On June 21, 2022 Magistrate Judge Brian Tsuchida granted Mr. Baker’s application to proceed 19 IFP. Dkt. #4. 20 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 21 22 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 23 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 24 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 26 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 27 28 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 1 2 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Mr. Baker has failed to set forth exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 counsel in this case. He has demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate his claims. The Court 5 cannot conclude at this time whether his claims have a strong likelihood of success on the merits. 6 Given all of the above, the Court will deny this Motion. 7 8 Having Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby FINDS and 9 ORDERS that Plaintiff Justin Baker’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. #7, is DENIED. 10 DATED this 9th day of August, 2022. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 JUSTIN BAKER, Case No. C22-821-RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. 13 NEW HANOVER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Justin Baker’s Motion to Appoint 17 Counsel. Dkt. #7. Mr. Baker filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. #1. 18 On June 21, 2022 Magistrate Judge Brian Tsuchida granted Mr. Baker’s application to proceed 19 IFP. Dkt. #4. 20 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 21 22 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 23 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 24 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 26 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 27 28 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 1 2 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Mr. Baker has failed to set forth exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of 4 counsel in this case. He has demonstrated sufficient ability to articulate his claims. The Court 5 cannot conclude at this time whether his claims have a strong likelihood of success on the merits. 6 Given all of the above, the Court will deny this Motion. 7 8 Having Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby FINDS and 9 ORDERS that Plaintiff Justin Baker’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. #7, is DENIED. 10 DATED this 9th day of August, 2022. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Baker v. New Hanover Regional Hospital, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Baker v. New Hanover Regional Hospital (Baker v. New Hanover Regional Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related