Jackson v. Liedkie

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: February 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00023
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Feb 16, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 LYNN L. JACKSON, No. 2:24-cv-00023-SAB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MOOT 8 vs. AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO 9 CURTIS L. LIEDKIE, COUNSEL

10 Defendant. ECF Nos. 4, 5 11 Before the denying Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) 12 recommending the denial of Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (“IFP”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel 14 (ECF No. 4). 15 I. Indigency 16 The Report and Recommendation recommends denial of Plaintiff’s IFP 17 application because the “alleged household resources exceed what the Court deems 18 to be the resources of an indigent household.” ECF No. 5. On February 14, 2024, 19 Plaintiff paid the full filing fee and simultaneously asked this Court to reconsider 20 the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 6. The Court construes Plaintiff’s 1 response as an objection to the recommendation. Plaintiff states that while he is 2 trying to “make ends meet” and save money, payment of the filing fee causes him

3 to wonder how he will “pay for food for the next month.” ECF No. 7 at 1. 4 However, Plaintiff’s IFP application states that his monthly expenses are 5 approximately 40% of his take-home pay, which exceeds $2,000 per month. ECF

6 No. 3. Assuming Plaintiff’s own identification of expenses is accurate, Plaintiff’s 7 application shows limited income and no assets, but does not show that paying a 8 filing fee would deprive him of “the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de 9 Numours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Because Plaintiff has paid the filing

10 fee, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is moot. In addition, because he 11 has paid the fee, Plaintiff’s Complaint is not subject to the screening requirement 12 for IFP actions. Butler v. Leen, 4 F.3d 772, 773 (9th Cir. 1993).

13 II. Appointment of Counsel 14 There is no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil 15 litigation. Although a court may request that an attorney represent an indigent 16 litigant in cases where appointment is deemed warranted, here, Plaintiff has not

17 demonstrated that he is indigent. See E.D. Wash. General Order 16-114-1, 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff states he needs legal assistance to “ensure all 19 paperwork is filed correctly and all deadlines are met.” ECF No. 7. Plaintiff may

20 find the Court’s public website helpful as it contains the Court’s Local Civil Rules as well as information specifically geared to self-represented litigants. See 2|| https://www.waed.uscourts.gov/information-self-represented-litigants. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. The Court does not adopt the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5|| 5, because Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. The Report and Recommendation and 6|| Plaintiffs Application to Proceed IFP are therefore rejected as moot. 7 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 4, is 8|| DENIED. 9 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to counsel and mail a copy to the pro se Plaintiff. 11 DATED February 16, 2024. 12 13 © Sock yl Sect 16 Stanley A. Bastian 7 Chief United States District Judge

18 19 20