Baylis v. Valve Corporation

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 TREVOR KEVIN BAYLIS, Case No. C23-1653RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. 13 VALVE CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Trevor Baylis’s “Application for Court- 17 Appointed Counsel,” Dkt. #8. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Defendant Valve, a distributor of 18 19 video games, has not yet appeared. 20 Mr. Baylis alleges that he is an author of the film “Iron Sky,” and that Valve has 21 engaged in the unauthorized distribution of his copyrighted works, specifically “3D modeled 22 space craft that appear prominently and feature as the main game-play of the games being 23 distributed” and “[f]ilm footage from Iron Sky.” Dkt. #5 at 5. He alleges that he has sent a 24 25 “DMCA request” to Valve. Id. In the instant Motion, he sets forth no facts about his personal 26 financial circumstances or his attempts to obtain counsel. See Dkt. #8. 27 28 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 1 2 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 3 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 4 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 5 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro 6 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 7 8 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for 9 indigent civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 10 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 11 Plaintiff has presented a coherent claim with citation to applicable law. He appears to 12 13 have a good understanding of the laws and facts that would be necessary to support his claims. 14 The Complaint appears to demonstrate a capacity to proceed in this case pro se. The Court 15 cannot conclude at this time whether Plaintiff’s claims have a strong likelihood of success on 16 the merits given the limited factual record. Plaintiff has otherwise failed to set forth exceptional 17 circumstances. Given all of the above, the Court will deny the requested relief. 18 19 Having considered the briefing from Plaintiff and the remainder of the record, the Court 20 hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. #8, is DENIED. 21 DATED this 13th day of November, 2023. 22 23 A 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28