Goodin v. Eastern State Hospital

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 4, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Aug 04, 2022 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ELLIOTT D. GOODIN, 7 NO: 2:22-CV-0115-TOR Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 9

EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL, 10

Defendant. 11 12

13 On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff was allowed to file an Amended Complaint 14 within 60 days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 15 ECF No. 3. 16 Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to amend within 60 days would result 17 in the dismissal of this case. ECF No. 4 at 10. Although granted the opportunity to 18 do so, Plaintiff has now failed to amend his complaint to include sufficient facts to 19 establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 20 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). 1 Plaintiff has written a letter to the Court which is construed as a motion for 2 appointed counsel. ECF No. 5. Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil

3 actions. However, the court has discretion to designate counsel pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) under “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 5 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). “When determining whether ‘exceptional

6 circumstances’ exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits 7 as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 8 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 9 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). The court may only request attorneys to represent

10 impoverished litigants, rather than command them to take cases, and there is no 11 compensation available for them. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 12 490 U.S. 296, 302, & n.3 (1989).

13 Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant 14 appointment of counsel. 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma 16 pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” The

17 good faith standard is an objective one, and good faith is demonstrated when an 18 individual “seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” See Coppedge v. 19 United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an

20 appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 3 The Court finds that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, the Court 5|| hereby revokes Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status. 6|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 8 state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). 9 2. Plaintiffs letter construed as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF 10 No. 5, is DENIED. 11 3. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED. 12 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment of 13 || dismissal without prejudice, forward a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. 14 DATED August 4, 2022.

eos Hgnuas 0 Ket 16 On i U3 HOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 17 18 19 20