Gillum v. Owens

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DAVID ALLEN GILLUM, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01859-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING FOURTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 11 OWENS, ET AL., et al., COUNSEL AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND 12 Defendant. 13

14 The Court DENIES plaintiff’s fourth motion to appoint counsel and for more time to 15 respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 45. In November 2019, plaintiff 16 filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 17 1983 action. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). In 18 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). 20 This is not an exceptional case given plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and 21 ability to articulate his claims pro se given the complexity of the legal issues. Wilborn v. 22 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). To obtain counsel, plaintiff must plead facts 23 establishing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an 1 inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 2 America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 Plaintiff requests counsel arguing he is detained in the King County. Dkt. 45. Despite his 4 incarceration, plaintiff has responded to the summary judgment motion and articulated an

5 argument as to why summary judgment should be denied. Dkt. 46. Plaintiff has also shown 6 throughout the case he can articulate his claims pro se by filing a serviceable complaint, and 7 various motions. The case’s factual or legal basis are not complex; plaintiff’s response and 8 establishes he understands defendants’ summary judgment motion. As plaintiff has not 9 demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, the motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 45) is 10 DENIED. 11 The Court also DENIES plaintiff an extension to respond to the summary judgment 12 motion. The summary judgment motion was filed in July and was ripe for review in August. 13 Plaintiff was given an extension to respond, was informed no further extensions would be 14 granted, and has in fact responded to the motion.

15 The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to plaintiff to both his out of custody address 16 and to the King County Jail. 17 DATED this 3rd day of September, 2020. 18 A 19 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23