Burns v. International Business Machines Corporation

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9 VIVIAN BURNS, 10

11 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-1555RSM

12 v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Second Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by 18 Plaintiff Vivian Burns. Dkt. #58. The Court has previously denied a request for counsel in this 19 case. Dkt. #14. The Court has subsequently dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims and closed this 20 case. Dkt. #49. Plaintiff’s Motion for a new trial and for relief under Rules 59 and 60 was 21 22 denied. Dkt. #57. The Court has determined that it can rule on this Motion without waiting for 23 a response brief. 24 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 25 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 26 27 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 28 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 1 2 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 3 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent 4 civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 5 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 6 Ms. Burns has failed to set forth exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment 7 8 of counsel. Because this case is closed, appointed counsel could not help her further litigate this 9 case. Given all of the above, this Motion will be denied. The Court will not consider further 10 memoranda or declarations filed in this case that attempt to argue the merits of her dismissed 11 claims. 12 13 Having considered the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court finds and 14 ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion, Dkt. #58, is DENIED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this 15 Order to Plaintiff at 10605 SE 240TH ST #344 KENT, WA 98031. 16 DATED this 25th day of January, 2022. 17

18 19 A 20 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 21 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28