Gobin v. Hogan

W.D. Washington

Gobin v. Hogan

DecidedJuly 28, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01044

StatusUnknown

This text of Gobin v. Hogan (Gobin v. Hogan) 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

Gobin v. Hogan, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 EARL JAMES GOBIN, CASE NO. C20-1044 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 12 v. 13 KATHLEEN HOGAN, 14 Defendant. 15

16 Mr. Gobin, currently appearing pro se, has requested that this Court appoint counsel to 17 represent him in his lawsuit. Dkt. No. 2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits the court, in its 18 discretion, to request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. 19 However, “[a] motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is addressed to 20 the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 21 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)(citing United States v. McQuade, 647 22 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to 23 evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the ability of the Plaintiff 24 1 to articulate the claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. 2 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 While the Court is not prepared to venture an opinion of Plaintiff’s likelihood of success 4 on the merits of his complaint, it is noted (based on the materials provided by Plaintiff) that

5 Plaintiff has previously successfully negotiated a settlement of some portion of his employment 6 claims with his former employer, and appears quite capable of articulating the bases of his 7 current claims. He is a former professional in the technology industry and his writing indicates a 8 person who is both lucid and intelligent. 9 The Court is unable to find at this time that Plaintiff would be unable to articulate his 10 claims without assistance, and therefore, in view of the relative shortage of attorneys available 11 for and willing to do pro bono legal work, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 13 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and to all counsel. 14

15 Dated July _28_, 2020.

A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman 18 United States Senior District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 EARL JAMES GOBIN, CASE NO. C20-1044 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 12 v. 13 KATHLEEN HOGAN, 14 Defendant. 15

16 Mr. Gobin, currently appearing pro se, has requested that this Court appoint counsel to 17 represent him in his lawsuit. Dkt. No. 2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits the court, in its 18 discretion, to request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. 19 However, “[a] motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is addressed to 20 the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 21 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)(citing United States v. McQuade, 647 22 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires the court to 23 evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and the ability of the Plaintiff 24 1 to articulate the claim pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. 2 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 While the Court is not prepared to venture an opinion of Plaintiff’s likelihood of success 4 on the merits of his complaint, it is noted (based on the materials provided by Plaintiff) that

5 Plaintiff has previously successfully negotiated a settlement of some portion of his employment 6 claims with his former employer, and appears quite capable of articulating the bases of his 7 current claims. He is a former professional in the technology industry and his writing indicates a 8 person who is both lucid and intelligent. 9 The Court is unable to find at this time that Plaintiff would be unable to articulate his 10 claims without assistance, and therefore, in view of the relative shortage of attorneys available 11 for and willing to do pro bono legal work, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. 13 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and to all counsel. 14

15 Dated July _28_, 2020.

A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman 18 United States Senior District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gobin v. Hogan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gobin-v-hogan-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack