Frazier v. Barnett

W.D. Washington

Frazier v. Barnett

DecidedMay 25, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00690

StatusUnknown

This text of Frazier v. Barnett (Frazier v. Barnett) 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

Frazier v. Barnett, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 ROBERT FRAZIER , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00690-JLR-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL 11 JULIA BARNETT, et al., 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff Michael Martin, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 14 rights action, has filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 7. The Court DENIES the motion. 15 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 16 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 18 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine whether “exceptional 19 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 20 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 21 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 23 1 Plaintiff requests the Court appoint counsel because he cannot afford counsel, the issues 2 are complex, he has limited knowledge of the law, he has ADA issues, and a prisoner who was 3 helping him was moved out of the unit. Dkt. 7 at 1–2. These are not extraordinary circumstances 4 but rather are circumstances and grounds that plaintiffs in custody regularly raise. In addition,

5 plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his claim, and in fact has been 6 ordered to file an amended complaint as the complaint he filed is deficient. Appointment of 7 counsel is therefore not justified at this time, and the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff’s motion for 8 appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7 is DENIED without prejudice. 9 DATED this 25th day of May, 2023. 10 A 11 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 ROBERT FRAZIER , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00690-JLR-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL 11 JULIA BARNETT, et al., 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff Michael Martin, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 14 rights action, has filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 7. The Court DENIES the motion. 15 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 16 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 18 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine whether “exceptional 19 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 20 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 21 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 23 1 Plaintiff requests the Court appoint counsel because he cannot afford counsel, the issues 2 are complex, he has limited knowledge of the law, he has ADA issues, and a prisoner who was 3 helping him was moved out of the unit. Dkt. 7 at 1–2. These are not extraordinary circumstances 4 but rather are circumstances and grounds that plaintiffs in custody regularly raise. In addition,

5 plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his claim, and in fact has been 6 ordered to file an amended complaint as the complaint he filed is deficient. Appointment of 7 counsel is therefore not justified at this time, and the Court ORDERS: Plaintiff’s motion for 8 appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7 is DENIED without prejudice. 9 DATED this 25th day of May, 2023. 10 A 11 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frazier v. Barnett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-barnett-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack