Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation

W.D. Washington

Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation

DecidedDecember 21, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01555

StatusUnknown

This text of Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation (Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation) 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

Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 VIVIAN BURNS, 10

11 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-1555RSM

12 v. 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS APPOINT COUNSEL 14 MACHINES CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff 18 Vivian Burns. Dkt. #6. Defendant has appeared and filed an Answer. Dkt. #11. 19 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 20 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 21 22 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 23 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 25 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 26 27 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent 28 civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 1 2 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Ms. Burns sets forth her efforts to retain an attorney but has failed to set forth exceptional 4 circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this case. She has demonstrated 5 sufficient ability to articulate her claims. Given all of the above, this Motion will be denied. 6 Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, this Motion is 7 8 DENIED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 10605 SE 240TH ST #344 9 KENT, WA 98031. 10 DATED this 21st day of December, 2020. 11

12 13 A 14 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

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

9 VIVIAN BURNS, 10

11 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-1555RSM

12 v. 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS APPOINT COUNSEL 14 MACHINES CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff 18 Vivian Burns. Dkt. #6. Defendant has appeared and filed an Answer. Dkt. #11. 19 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 20 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 21 22 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 23 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 25 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 26 27 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent 28 civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 1 2 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Ms. Burns sets forth her efforts to retain an attorney but has failed to set forth exceptional 4 circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel in this case. She has demonstrated 5 sufficient ability to articulate her claims. Given all of the above, this Motion will be denied. 6 Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, this Motion is 7 8 DENIED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 10605 SE 240TH ST #344 9 KENT, WA 98031. 10 DATED this 21st day of December, 2020. 11

12 13 A 14 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-international-business-machines-corporation-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack