Iceberg v. King County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 30, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01595
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 SCOTT FRANCIS ICEBERG, Case No. C20-1595RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. 13 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff 17 Scott Francis Iceberg. Dkt. #20. The Court has determined that it can rule on this Motion 18 without waiting for responsive briefing and chooses to do so given Mr. Iceberg’s assertion that 19 he “cannot respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss within the time a lotted [sic].” Id. at 2. 20 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 21 22 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 23 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 24 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro 26 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 27 28 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 1 2 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Mr. Iceberg has been able to sufficiently articulate his claims in this and several other 4 cases he has recently filed. The Court finds that his claims in this case have a low likelihood of 5 success based on the existing record. He has failed to set forth exceptional circumstances. If 6 anything, his Motion demonstrates a need for additional time to respond to the pending Motion 7 8 to Dismiss. Given all of the above, the Court will deny this Motion and sua sponte re-note the 9 pending Motion to Dismiss to allow Mr. Iceberg one additional week to prepare a response 10 brief. 11 Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 12 13 FINDS and ORDERS: 14 1) The Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Scott Francis Iceberg, Dkt. #20, is 15 DENIED. 16 2) The Court directs the Clerk to RE-NOTE the pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #18, 17 for consideration on January 29, 2021. Any responsive briefing from Mr. Iceberg is 18 19 due no later than January 25, 2021. See LCR 7(d). 20 21 DATED this 30th day of December, 2020. 22

23 A 24 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26

27 28