Belmonte v. King County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAVID L. BELMONTE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00518-JNW-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 COUNSEL KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff David L. Belmonte (also known as Damers Shirak Duranzan), proceeding pro se 16 and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the 17 Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dks. 1-2, 8. For the reasons below, the Motion 18 (Dkt. 8) is denied without prejudice. 19 No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. 20 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. 21 Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is 22 discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may 23 appoint voluntary counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 24 1 (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled 2 on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the 4 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro

5 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 6 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff 7 must plead facts showing (1) he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved 8 and (2) an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections 9 Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 In his Motion for Counsel, Plaintiff states he has contacted several attorneys, but none 11 have agreed to represent him in this matter. Dkt. 8 at 2. Plaintiff makes no further statements 12 regarding the propriety of appointing counsel in this case. While Plaintiff may be able to better 13 litigate this case with appointed counsel, that fact alone does not establish an extraordinary 14 circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Wilborn, 789

15 F.2d at 1331. Additionally, Plaintiff has yet to file pleadings adequate for service and, without a 16 viable complaint and responsive pleadings, the Court is unable to assess his likelihood of success 17 on the merits. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show the appointment of counsel is 18 appropriate at this time. 19 Accordingly, the Motion for Counsel (Dkt. 8) is denied without prejudice. 20 Dated this 28th day of June, 2024. 21 A 22 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 23