Guerra v. Department of Veterans Affairs

W.D. Washington

Guerra v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided September 8, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00693·Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JULIO C. GUERRA, CASE NO. C25-0693-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER v. AFFAIRS, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel (Dkt. No. 8) and for an extension of a deadline for the parties to meet and confer (Dkt. No. 10). As to the motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff contends he requires pro bono counsel to fully pursue his employment discrimination claims. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) However, such an appointment “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965). While a court may do so for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),1 this is limited to “exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). When determining whether such circumstances arise, the Court 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not actually authorize the Court to force a lawyer to take a case. Nor does the Court have staff attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants. Instead, the Court may only “request” that an attorney represent an indigent litigant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (holding that § 1915(e) authorizes “courts to ask but not compel lawyers to represent indigent litigants.”)

ORDER considers “the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s case history here demonstrates an ability to sufficiently articulate his claims. (See generally Dkt. No. 1-2 at 10–129.) As such, Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. As such, the motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. As to the motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10), the Court finds good cause to do so, based on client’s representations regarding medical issues. The previously articulated deadline, (see Dkt. No. 7), is EXTENDED to November 24, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED. DATED this 8th day of September 2025. A John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

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

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JULIO C. GUERRA, CASE NO. C25-0693-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER v. AFFAIRS, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel (Dkt. No. 8) and for an extension of a deadline for the parties to meet and confer (Dkt. No. 10). As to the motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff contends he requires pro bono counsel to fully pursue his employment discrimination claims. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) However, such an appointment “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965). While a court may do so for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),1 this is limited to “exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). When determining whether such circumstances arise, the Court 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not actually authorize the Court to force a lawyer to take a case. Nor does the Court have staff attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants. Instead, the Court may only “request” that an attorney represent an indigent litigant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (holding that § 1915(e) authorizes “courts to ask but not compel lawyers to represent indigent litigants.”)

ORDER considers “the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s case history here demonstrates an ability to sufficiently articulate his claims. (See generally Dkt. No. 1-2 at 10–129.) As such, Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. As such, the motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. As to the motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10), the Court finds good cause to do so, based on client’s representations regarding medical issues. The previously articulated deadline, (see Dkt. No. 7), is EXTENDED to November 24, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED. DATED this 8th day of September 2025. A John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

Guerra v. Department of Veterans Affairs, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Guerra v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Guerra v. Department of Veterans Affairs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related