Holiwell v. Higgins

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00720
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 ALICIA SANCHEZ HOLIWELL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00720-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. 10

11 C. ANDY HIGGINS, et al., AMENDED ORDER REFERRING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 12 Defendants. COUNSEL

14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Application for Court-Appointed 15 Counsel in Title VII Action.” Dkt. # 45. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 17 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under 18 “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 20 circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 21 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 22 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive 23 and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

25 26 AMENDED ORDER REFERRING MOTION FOR 1 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the party seeking 2 appointment of counsel must show indigency. 3 Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status (which the Court deems a 4 5 sufficient showing of indigency) and asserts that she has contacted 18-20 private attorneys 6 in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain representation. 7 With regards to the merits of plaintiff’s claims, her various complaints lack a 8 straightforward narrative, bouncing between years and events in a way that makes it very 9 10 difficult to infer necessary causal relationships. They also highlight statements and conduct 11 that do not appear to pertain to any of the asserted claims and mention causes of action, 12 such as violations of the Sherman Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, that 13 appear to be implausible on the facts asserted. These shortcomings make it difficult to 14 15 ascertain whether plaintiff’s discrimination, retaliation, and RCW 49.76 claims, which 16 form the heart of her complaints, have a reasonable chance of success. Some of these 17 claims implicate important public policies of the State of Washington, however, and their 18 elements and burdens of proof are not generally within a lay person’s ken. It appears that 19 plaintiff is having difficulty articulating valid claims without a lawyer’s assistance. 20 21 This District has implemented a plan for court-appointed representation of civil 22 rights litigants. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Plan for Pro Se Litigant Representation 23 in Civil Rights Actions (as amended, effective Jan. 1, 2024), the Court refers this matter to 24 the Pro Bono Coordinator and the Pro Bono Screening Committee for further review to 25 26 determine if pro bono counsel is warranted. See General Order 07-23 (attachment). AMENDED ORDER REFERRING MOTION FOR 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to renote plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel on 2 the Court’s calendar for Friday, January 10, 2025, to give the Screening Committee time to 3 make its recommendation.1 4 5 6 Dated this 3rd day of January, 2025. 7 8 9 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 The Screening Committee has requested an extension of time in which to complete its review. AMENDED ORDER REFERRING MOTION FOR