Hall v. Anderson

W.D. Washington

Hall v. Anderson

DecidedJune 24, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-05455

StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. Anderson (Hall v. Anderson) 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

Hall v. Anderson, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JUNAID RAMSEY HALL , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05455-LK-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 11 ILENE ANDERSON, et al., DKT. 9 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint on June 10, 2024, and on June 21, 14 2024, filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 9. 15 There is generally no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 16 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 18 of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, 19 the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 20 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt 21 v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Plaintiff contends the Court should appoint counsel because he cannot afford to hire 23 counsel and each of the lawyers he contacted declined to take his case. These reasons apply to 1 most requests for appointment of counsel and therefore are not exceptional circumstances. The 2 complaint filed demonstrates Plaintiff has the ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 3 complexity of the legal issues involved. The complaint alleges Defendants violated Plaintiff’s 4 rights by failing to adequately treat Plaintiff’s mental health issues. The allegations do not appear

5 at this point to involve complex facts or law and it too early in the action to determine whether 6 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Appointment of counsel is thus not 7 presently justified, and the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 5, is DENIED. 9 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 10 DATED this 24th day of June, 2024. 11 A 12 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JUNAID RAMSEY HALL , 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05455-LK-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 11 ILENE ANDERSON, et al., DKT. 9 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff filed a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint on June 10, 2024, and on June 21, 14 2024, filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 9. 15 There is generally no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 16 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 18 of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, 19 the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 20 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt 21 v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22 Plaintiff contends the Court should appoint counsel because he cannot afford to hire 23 counsel and each of the lawyers he contacted declined to take his case. These reasons apply to 1 most requests for appointment of counsel and therefore are not exceptional circumstances. The 2 complaint filed demonstrates Plaintiff has the ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 3 complexity of the legal issues involved. The complaint alleges Defendants violated Plaintiff’s 4 rights by failing to adequately treat Plaintiff’s mental health issues. The allegations do not appear

5 at this point to involve complex facts or law and it too early in the action to determine whether 6 Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Appointment of counsel is thus not 7 presently justified, and the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 5, is DENIED. 9 2. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 10 DATED this 24th day of June, 2024. 11 A 12 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hall v. Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-anderson-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack