Fouts v. Houlton

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:23-CV-5594-RAJ-DWC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. COUNSEL DION, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff Nathan Bradley Fouts, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, filed a letter requesting Court-appointed counsel (“Motion”). Dkt. 7. No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an

inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). In the Motion, Plaintiff states he does not know what he is doing in attempting to litigate this case and requests Court-appointed counsel. Dkt. 7. At this time, Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the Court find, this case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff has also not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case or shown an inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court. While Plaintiff may be able to better litigate this case with appointed counsel, that fact, alone, does not establish an extraordinary circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show the appointment of counsel is

appropriate at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 7) is denied. Dated this 18th day of July, 2023. A David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge