Bennett v. Hull

W.D. Washington

Bennett v. Hull

DecidedMarch 7, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-05858

StatusUnknown

This text of Bennett v. Hull (Bennett v. Hull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Hull, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KRIS K. BENNETT, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05858-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER STRIKING MOTION REGARDING FILING FEE DKT. 14, 11 WYATT HULL, AND DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DKT. 16. 12 Defendant.

13 On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a civil rights complaint, an application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and letter indicating he was arranging to mail a check in the 15 amount of $402.00 to pay for the filing fee. Dkt. 1. On November 30, 2021, the Court granted 16 Plaintiff's IFP application and ordered Plaintiff's prison to calculate and collect repayment of the 17 filing fee. Dkt. 4. On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a letter stating he had mailed a check 18 in the amount of $402 to pay for the filing fee in this case, and the clerk returned it by confusing 19 the check as related to a case Plaintiff withdrew in October 2021. 20 In the December letter, Plaintiff asked the Court to "stop the Motion to calculate and 21 collect fees from this facility, Stafford Creek Corrections." Id. On December 13, 2021, the clerk 22 received from Plaintiff a check for the filing fee. On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to 23 compel the Washington State Department of Corrections to stop collecting the repayment for the 1 filing fee. Dkt. 14. Defendant filed a response that the Department of Corrections has reversed 2 the filing fee deductions, returned them to Plaintiff and ceased taking deductions for the filing 3 fee. Dkt. 18. As the Department of Corrections has granted Plaintiff his request, the Court finds 4 the motion for return of fees should be stricken moot.

5 Plaintiff also moves for appoint of counsel. Dkt. 16. There is generally no right to counsel 6 in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may 7 appoint counsel for civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional 8 circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). The 9 Court considers the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 10 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved in assessing whether 11 exceptional circumstances exist. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The 12 complaint does not raise a complicated action that exceeds Plaintiff's abilities and thus the Court 13 concludes the case does not present exceptional circumstances compelling appointment of 14 counsel. Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Court ORDERS:

15 (1) The motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt 16, is DENIED without prejudice. 16 (2) The motion for regarding collection of the filing fee, Dkt. 14, is STRICKEN as 17 moot. 18 (3) The clerk shall provide the parties with a copy of this order. 19 DATED this 7th day of March, 2022. 20 A 21 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 22

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 KRIS K. BENNETT, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05858-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER STRIKING MOTION REGARDING FILING FEE DKT. 14, 11 WYATT HULL, AND DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DKT. 16. 12 Defendant.

13 On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a civil rights complaint, an application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and letter indicating he was arranging to mail a check in the 15 amount of $402.00 to pay for the filing fee. Dkt. 1. On November 30, 2021, the Court granted 16 Plaintiff's IFP application and ordered Plaintiff's prison to calculate and collect repayment of the 17 filing fee. Dkt. 4. On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a letter stating he had mailed a check 18 in the amount of $402 to pay for the filing fee in this case, and the clerk returned it by confusing 19 the check as related to a case Plaintiff withdrew in October 2021. 20 In the December letter, Plaintiff asked the Court to "stop the Motion to calculate and 21 collect fees from this facility, Stafford Creek Corrections." Id. On December 13, 2021, the clerk 22 received from Plaintiff a check for the filing fee. On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to 23 compel the Washington State Department of Corrections to stop collecting the repayment for the 1 filing fee. Dkt. 14. Defendant filed a response that the Department of Corrections has reversed 2 the filing fee deductions, returned them to Plaintiff and ceased taking deductions for the filing 3 fee. Dkt. 18. As the Department of Corrections has granted Plaintiff his request, the Court finds 4 the motion for return of fees should be stricken moot.

5 Plaintiff also moves for appoint of counsel. Dkt. 16. There is generally no right to counsel 6 in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may 7 appoint counsel for civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional 8 circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). The 9 Court considers the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate 10 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved in assessing whether 11 exceptional circumstances exist. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). The 12 complaint does not raise a complicated action that exceeds Plaintiff's abilities and thus the Court 13 concludes the case does not present exceptional circumstances compelling appointment of 14 counsel. Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Court ORDERS:

15 (1) The motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt 16, is DENIED without prejudice. 16 (2) The motion for regarding collection of the filing fee, Dkt. 14, is STRICKEN as 17 moot. 18 (3) The clerk shall provide the parties with a copy of this order. 19 DATED this 7th day of March, 2022. 20 A 21 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bennett v. Hull, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-hull-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack