Guerra v. Department of Veterans Affairs

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00693
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JULIO C. GUERRA, CASE NO. C25-0693-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel 16 (Dkt. No. 8) and for an extension of a deadline for the parties to meet and confer (Dkt. No. 10). 17 As to the motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff contends he requires pro bono counsel to 18 fully pursue his employment discrimination claims. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) However, 19 such an appointment “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 20 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965). While a court may do so for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1),1 this is limited to “exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 22 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). When determining whether such circumstances arise, the Court 23 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not actually authorize the Court to force a lawyer to take a case. Nor 24 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 25 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.”) 26

ORDER 1 considers “the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his 2 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 3 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff’s case history here demonstrates an ability to 4 sufficiently articulate his claims. (See generally Dkt. No. 1-2 at 10–129.) As such, Plaintiff has 5 not established exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. As such, the 6 motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. 7 As to the motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10), the Court finds good cause to do 8 so, based on client’s representations regarding medical issues. The previously articulated 9 deadline, (see Dkt. No. 7), is EXTENDED to November 24, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 10 motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED. 11 12 DATED this 8th day of September 2025. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER