James v. Thomas

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 2, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00303
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 HENRY JAMES, Case No. C21-303RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 v. 13 SGT. F. THOMAS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff 17 Henry James. Dkt. #15. Defendants have filed an opposition brief. Dkt. #16. Mr. James is 18 currently proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. See Dkt. #6. 19 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 20 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 21 22 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 23 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 24 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro 25 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 26 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for 27 28 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. James has thoughtfully presented his claims with detailed factual allegations 4 connected to legal arguments. See Dkt. #7. The Complaint clearly demonstrates a capacity to 5 proceed in this case pro se. The Court cannot conclude on this thin record whether his claims 6 have a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Mr. James, no longer incarcerated, has 7 8 presented some evidence of searching for counsel years ago, but has not demonstrated that a 9 continued search is futile. He has otherwise failed to set forth exceptional circumstances. 10 Given all of the above, the Court will deny this Motion at this time. 11 Having considered the briefing from the parties and the remainder of the record, the 12 13 Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. #15, is 14 DENIED. 15 DATED this 2nd day of June, 2021. 16

17 18 A 19 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28