Coleman v. Merritt

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 TRAVIS CLINTON COLEMAN , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01566-JCC-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 7 11 C. MERRITT, et al., 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff, a King County Jail detainee, filed a complaint alleging (1) Defendants assaulted 14 and injured him on August 10, 2024; (2) he was denied adequate medical care for injuries 15 suffered in the assault; and (3) following the assault, he was placed in restrictive custody without 16 a hearing. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff now moves for appointment of counsel on the grounds he cannot 17 afford to hire a lawyer; incarceration makes it difficult to research and investigate his case; he 18 has mental conditions that impair him; and counsel would be better able to present evidence and 19 cross-examine witnesses at a trial. Dkt. 7. 20 Generally, there is no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 21 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 23 of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 1 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 2 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 3 issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 The Court finds this is not a case involving exceptional circumstances. Rather, Plaintiff

5 has thus far been able to articulate his claims as a pro se litigant. Although Plaintiff claims his 6 case is complex, Plaintiff presents straightforward allegations that defendants assaulted and 7 injured him, that he was denied medical care for these injuries, and that he was placed into 8 restrictive custody following the assault. Further, the Court at this also cannot say that Plaintiff 9 has a likelihood of succeeding in this matter at this early stage. 10 The accordingly ORDERS: (1) the motion for motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7 11 is DENIED without prejudice; and (2) a copy of this order shall be provided to plaintiff. 12 DATED this 23rd day of October, 2024. 13 A 14 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23