Burnell v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

W.D. Washington

Burnell v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

DecidedMay 31, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00265

StatusUnknown

This text of Burnell v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (Burnell v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) 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

Burnell v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MICHELLE LYNN BURNELL, CASE NO. C22-0265JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & 13 SMITH LLP, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Michelle Lynn Burnell’s motion for appointment of 16 counsel.1 (Mot. (Dkt. # 9); Am. Counsel Mot. (Dkt. # 7).) On March 21, 2022, pursuant 17 to the Western District of Washington’s plan for court-appointed representation, the court 18 concluded that Ms. Burnell had demonstrated an adequate basis to refer her case to the 19 Pro Bono Screening Committee. (See 3/21/22 Order (Dkt. # 11) (citing General Order 20 No. 16-20, Section 3(c) (Dec. 8, 2020)).) The Screening Committee informed the court 21

22 1 Ms. Burnell is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (3/7/22 Order (Dkt. # 3).) 1 that the information it was provided—including, among other things, Ms. Burnell’s 2 complaint and EEOC file—is not sufficient to make a determination about whether

3 counsel should be appointed in this matter.2 4 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Adir Int’l, LLC v. Starr 5 Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2021). Without the Screening 6 Committee’s recommendation to appoint counsel pursuant to this District’s plan for 7 court-appointed representation of civil rights litigants, the court declines to do so. 8 Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Burnell’s motion (Dkts. ## 7, 9).

9 The court emphasizes that Ms. Burnell is now responsible for pursuing this case 10 without the assistance of counsel. Materials to assist pro se litigants are available on the 11 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s website. Although 12 the court can afford some leeway to a pro se litigant, Ms. Burnell is responsible for 13 complying with case deadlines, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Western

14 District of Washington’s Local Rules, which can also be found on the Western District of 15 Washington’s website. 16 Dated this 31st day of May, 2022. 17 A 18 19 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 20

21 2 Although Ms. Burnell stated in her complaint that she would file an amended complaint that more fully sets forth the facts underlying her claims (see Compl. (Dkt. # 4) at 4), she has not 22 yet done so (see generally Dkt.).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MICHELLE LYNN BURNELL, CASE NO. C22-0265JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & 13 SMITH LLP, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Michelle Lynn Burnell’s motion for appointment of 16 counsel.1 (Mot. (Dkt. # 9); Am. Counsel Mot. (Dkt. # 7).) On March 21, 2022, pursuant 17 to the Western District of Washington’s plan for court-appointed representation, the court 18 concluded that Ms. Burnell had demonstrated an adequate basis to refer her case to the 19 Pro Bono Screening Committee. (See 3/21/22 Order (Dkt. # 11) (citing General Order 20 No. 16-20, Section 3(c) (Dec. 8, 2020)).) The Screening Committee informed the court 21

22 1 Ms. Burnell is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (3/7/22 Order (Dkt. # 3).) 1 that the information it was provided—including, among other things, Ms. Burnell’s 2 complaint and EEOC file—is not sufficient to make a determination about whether

3 counsel should be appointed in this matter.2 4 There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Adir Int’l, LLC v. Starr 5 Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2021). Without the Screening 6 Committee’s recommendation to appoint counsel pursuant to this District’s plan for 7 court-appointed representation of civil rights litigants, the court declines to do so. 8 Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Burnell’s motion (Dkts. ## 7, 9).

9 The court emphasizes that Ms. Burnell is now responsible for pursuing this case 10 without the assistance of counsel. Materials to assist pro se litigants are available on the 11 United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s website. Although 12 the court can afford some leeway to a pro se litigant, Ms. Burnell is responsible for 13 complying with case deadlines, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Western

14 District of Washington’s Local Rules, which can also be found on the Western District of 15 Washington’s website. 16 Dated this 31st day of May, 2022. 17 A 18 19 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 20

21 2 Although Ms. Burnell stated in her complaint that she would file an amended complaint that more fully sets forth the facts underlying her claims (see Compl. (Dkt. # 4) at 4), she has not 22 yet done so (see generally Dkt.).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burnell v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnell-v-lewis-brisbois-bisgaard-smith-llp-wawd-2022.