Bradley v. Department of Executive Services

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ALONZO BRADLEY, CASE NO. C20-1068 MJP Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL v. SERVICES, Defendant.

Mr. Bradley, currently appearing pro se, has requested that this Court appoint counsel to represent him in his lawsuit. Dkt. No. 8. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits the court, in its discretion, to request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. Having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court has no question about Mr. Bradley’s ability to afford to retain his own attorney. However, “[a] motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)(citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. In fact, on July 13, 2020, the Court found Plaintiff’s complaint deficient for its vagueness

and failure to allege facts demonstrating that the defendants personally participated in causing constitutional harm to him. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. Mr. Bradley was given 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing those deficiencies, and to date no new complaint has been filed. The Court is unable to find at this time that Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits of his complaint, and therefore IT IS ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and to all counsel. Dated July 22, 2020. A Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge