Hawn v. McCann

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05310
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 DANIEL W. J. HAWN, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05310-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 MCCANN, Sergeant, 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Application for Court-Appointed Counsel” 18 (“Motion”). Dkt. No 33. Having reviewed the motion and the relevant record, the court DENIES 19 the motion without prejudice. 20 Plaintiff indicated a desire for court-appointed counsel because he “would like to settle 21 this matter but do[es] not have the means to communicate with the defendants.” Id. at 4. While 22 the Court recognizes the challenges faced by pro se litigants in preparing a case without legal 23 counsel and acknowledges Plaintiff’s situation, “[g]enerally, a person has no right to counsel in 24 1 civil actions.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming denial of 2 appointment of counsel). 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may appoint counsel for indigent 4 civil litigants under “exceptional circumstances.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. Exceptional

5 circumstances exist where (1) a pro se plaintiff establishes a likelihood of success on the merits, 6 and (2) the complexity of the legal issues involved would impede the pro se litigant’s ability to 7 present the case. Id.; see also Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 8 2004); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 Here, the Court need not consider the likelihood of success on the merits, because it is 10 clear that these legal issues are not complex. On June 11, 2025, the Court adopted the Report and 11 Recommendation of Judge Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 29), and 12 accordingly dismissed most of the claims and defendants in this action. Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff’s 13 only remaining claim is a First Amendment claim, asserted against Defendant McCann, for 14 alleged mishandling of Plaintiff’s legal mail. See Dkt. No. 29 at 15. Furthermore, despite the

15 concern expressed by Plaintiff in his Motion, it appears he has since been able to communicate 16 with Defendant’s counsel by telephone. See Dkt. No. 34 (Defendant’s Filing Regarding Trial 17 Availability) at 1. 18 Considering that the case is not complex, there is no right to appointed counsel, and 19 Plaintiff and Defendant have both indicated a willingness to explore settlement, see id., the Court 20 does not find good cause to seek appointed counsel for Plaintiff at this time. Instead, and given 21 the very limited alleged violation at issue, the Court encourages the parties to meet and confer 22 regarding settlement and to inform the Court if it appears a settlement conference with a 23 magistrate judge would be helpful.

24 ] If the parties are unable to reach a settlement agreement, Plaintiff may file another 2 || motion for appointment of counsel as appropriate. 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel 4 || (Dkt. No. 33). 5 In addition, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to rename this case Hawn vy. McCann and 6 || remove from the docket those Defendants terminated by the Court’s prior order (Dkt. No. 32). 7 Dated this 3rd day of July, 2025. an Ze 9 Tana Lin 10 United States District Judge

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24