Gates v. Briones

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00536
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 BRANDON T. GATES, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-536-RAJ-MLP 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 JOSE BRIONES, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Currently before the Court is 15 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. # 12.) Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel 16 because he is overwhelmed by proceeding pro se in this case and in a criminal case filed against 17 him in state court. He also claims he has no prior experience with the law and that there is no law 18 library at the Island County Jail where he is held. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that he 19 has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and that his claimed denial of access to a law 20 library is false. (Dkt. # 13.) Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff has access to a law library, 21 uses it regularly, and has been able to send and receive legal mail. (Dkt. # 14.) 22 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 23 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). In certain “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the 1 voluntary assistance of counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 2 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining 3 whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the 4 merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

5 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, this case does not involve complex facts 7 or law. And despite Plaintiff’s feelings of overwhelm, he appears able to articulate his claims pro 8 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, as evidenced by the fact that the Court 9 deemed his complaint serviceable. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to prevail 10 on the merits of his claim. Accordingly, exceptional circumstances do not exist and Plaintiff’s 11 motion to appoint counsel (dkt. # 12) is DENIED. 12 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable 13 Richard A. Jones. 14 Dated this 16th day of June, 2020.

15 16 A 17 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 18

19 20 21 22 23