Faust v. Inslee

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 AT TACOMA 5 REBECCA FAUST, CASE NO. C20-5356 BHS 6 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 7 v. MOTION FOR WAIVER OF PACER FEES AND MOTION TO 8 JAY INSLEE, Governor of the State of APPOINT COUNSEL Washington; CHRIS LIU, Director of 9 Enterprise Services Defendants. 10 11 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Rebecca Faust’s (“Faust”) motion 12 for waiver of PACER fees, Dkt. 5, and motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 19. 13 On April 28, 2020, the Court granted Faust’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 14 and accepted Faust’s civil rights complaint against Defendants Jay Inslee, Governor of 15 the State of Washington (“Governor Inslee”) and Chris Liu, Director of Enterprise 16 Services (“Liu”) (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. 3. Faust’s claim is based on the 17 denial of her application for a permit to hold a rally on the State Capital grounds on May 18 1, 2020. Id. at 3. 19 On April 28, 2020 the Court also accepted Faust’s motion for the waiver of 20 PACER fees. Dkt. 5. Faust fails to cite any authority in support of her request. 21 Moreover, Faust fails to show that she was billed, requested a waiver based on her 22 1 financial situation, and was denied such a waiver. At most, Faust’s fee will be capped at 2 $30 per quarter. See https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2019/09/17/judiciary-adopts-new- 3 model-edr-plan-doubles-fee-waiver-pacer#pacer (last visited June 4, 2020). Therefore,

4 the Court DENIES the motion. 5 On May 8, 2020, Faust filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 19. The decision 6 to appoint is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in 7 exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). 8 A finding of exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least

9 an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation 10 of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate her claims “in light of the complexity of the legal 11 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting 12 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 13 In this case, Faust has failed to establish exceptional circumstance warranting

14 appointed counsel. Faust has sufficiently articulated her claims such that the Court and 15 Defendants can adequately understand them. Thus, Faust has failed to establish a need 16 for appointed counsel at this time, and the Court DENIES the motion. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated this 4th day of June, 2020. A 19 20 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 21 United States District Judge