Brandon v. Department of Corrections of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MYRON G. BRANDON, CASE NO. 3:22-CV-5284-LK-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. APPOINT COUNSEL 13 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF WASHINGTON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 Plaintiff Myron G. Brandon, who is proceeding pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, 17 filed a request for Court-appointed counsel. Dkt. 28. No constitutional right to appointed counsel 18 exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United 19 States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of 20 counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional 21 circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 23 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether 24 1 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the 2 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 3 of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) 4 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts

5 showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate 6 ability to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 7 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 In the Motion, Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel and is expecting a trial in 9 this matter to be complex. Dkt. 28. Upon review, the Court finds the Motion contains no reasons 10 supporting Plaintiff’s need for Court-appointed counsel. Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the 11 Court find, this case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff has also not shown an inability to 12 articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court, nor has he 13 shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. The balance of reasons cited by plaintiff 14 in the instant motion are issues common to other pro se litigants and are not exceptional.

15 Therefore, they do not warrant the appointment of counsel. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App’x 16 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because plaintiff’s “circumstances 17 were not exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges faced by pro se litigants) 18 (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 28) is denied. 19 Dated this 29th day of September, 2022. 20 A 21 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24