Fouts v. Inslee

W.D. Washington

Fouts v. Inslee

DecidedJuly 7, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-05565

StatusUnknown

This text of Fouts v. Inslee (Fouts v. Inslee) 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

Fouts v. Inslee, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 NATHAN BRADLEY FOUTS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05565-LK-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL 11 JAY INSLEE, et al., 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff is currently detained in the Mason County Jail. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 14 rights action against numerous individuals regarding medical treatment at several Washington 15 State Department of Corrections Prisons. 16 Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 5. The Court has reviewed the motion 17 and the record and ORDERS as follows: 18 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 5, is DENIED. There is no 19 right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma 21 pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 22 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); 23 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances 1 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 2 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 3 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 4 The Court denies appointment of counsel because the complaint Plaintiff filed is not

5 complex. It alleges Defendants violated his rights by failing to treat a medical condition that 6 caused him great pain. Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claim without counsel. 7 While Plaintiff demonstrates the ability to articulate his claims, the complaint contains 8 several defects affecting the merits of Plaintiff’s contentions. The complaint names entities that 9 cannot be sued, such the State of Washington. The complaint provides no basis as to how or why 10 Governor Jay Inslee engaged in any acts that support relief. The complaint also contains 11 conclusory allegations against various medical staff, wardens or superintendents that are 12 insufficient as presently presented. The Court further notes that at least a portion of Plaintiff’s 13 allegations occurred outside of the three-year statute of limitations and may thus be time-barred. 14 Based on the record presently before Court, Court concludes Plaintiff has not

15 demonstrated his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the appointment of 16 counsel. 17 (2) The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 18 DATED this 7th day of July, 2023. 19 A 20 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 21

22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 NATHAN BRADLEY FOUTS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05565-LK-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL 11 JAY INSLEE, et al., 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff is currently detained in the Mason County Jail. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 14 rights action against numerous individuals regarding medical treatment at several Washington 15 State Department of Corrections Prisons. 16 Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 5. The Court has reviewed the motion 17 and the record and ORDERS as follows: 18 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 5, is DENIED. There is no 19 right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma 21 pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 22 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); 23 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances 1 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 2 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 3 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 4 The Court denies appointment of counsel because the complaint Plaintiff filed is not

5 complex. It alleges Defendants violated his rights by failing to treat a medical condition that 6 caused him great pain. Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claim without counsel. 7 While Plaintiff demonstrates the ability to articulate his claims, the complaint contains 8 several defects affecting the merits of Plaintiff’s contentions. The complaint names entities that 9 cannot be sued, such the State of Washington. The complaint provides no basis as to how or why 10 Governor Jay Inslee engaged in any acts that support relief. The complaint also contains 11 conclusory allegations against various medical staff, wardens or superintendents that are 12 insufficient as presently presented. The Court further notes that at least a portion of Plaintiff’s 13 allegations occurred outside of the three-year statute of limitations and may thus be time-barred. 14 Based on the record presently before Court, Court concludes Plaintiff has not

15 demonstrated his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the appointment of 16 counsel. 17 (2) The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 18 DATED this 7th day of July, 2023. 19 A 20 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 21

22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fouts v. Inslee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fouts-v-inslee-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack