Hart v. Rainer

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01464-RSM-BAT v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL KARIE RAINER, et al., Defendant.

Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 15. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. The Court may appoint counsel if the “interests of justice so require,” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), and after assessing petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygardt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). The Court having reviewed the record and considered both factors concludes the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff has filed a complaint and an amended complaint. Despite his claims that he is incompetent, his ability to file a serviceable complaint indicates that he is able to articulate his claims in light of the complexity of the case. Accordingly, The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 15. The Clerk shall send copies of this order to the parties. DATED this 5th day of January, 2021.

A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge