Capadanno v. AT&T Corp

W.D. Washington

Capadanno v. AT&T Corp

DecidedFebruary 8, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01690

StatusUnknown

This text of Capadanno v. AT&T Corp (Capadanno v. AT&T Corp) 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

Capadanno v. AT&T Corp, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JOHN CAPADANNO, CASE NO. C20-1690 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 12 v. 13 AT&T CORP, 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. No. 19 12.) Having reviewed the Motion and the relevant portions of the record, the Court DENIES 20 Plaintiff’s Motion. 21 The Court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but an appointment of counsel should only be granted under “exceptional 23 circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an 1 evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the 2 plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 3 Id. (internal quotations omitted). 4 Plaintiff has not demonstrated the merits of his claims in his Motion for Appointment of 5 Counsel, and the Court is unable to find sufficient merit on the face of his complaint to warrant

6 appointment. Plaintiff has not presented exceptional circumstances that would justify the 7 appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 8 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and counsel. 9 Dated February 8, 2021. A 10 11 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JOHN CAPADANNO, CASE NO. C20-1690 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 12 v. 13 AT&T CORP, 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dkt. No. 19 12.) Having reviewed the Motion and the relevant portions of the record, the Court DENIES 20 Plaintiff’s Motion. 21 The Court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but an appointment of counsel should only be granted under “exceptional 23 circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 24 “A finding of the exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an 1 evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the 2 plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 3 Id. (internal quotations omitted). 4 Plaintiff has not demonstrated the merits of his claims in his Motion for Appointment of 5 Counsel, and the Court is unable to find sufficient merit on the face of his complaint to warrant

6 appointment. Plaintiff has not presented exceptional circumstances that would justify the 7 appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 8 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and counsel. 9 Dated February 8, 2021. A 10 11 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Capadanno v. AT&T Corp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capadanno-v-att-corp-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack