Johnson v. Monts

W.D. Washington

Johnson v. Monts

DecidedJanuary 8, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-05972

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Monts (Johnson v. Monts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Monts, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 KRISTIE JOHNSON; RANAYJAH Case No. 3:23-cv-05972-TMC 8 JACKSON; RUBY JACKSON, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 9 COUNSEL Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 BRANDI MONTS, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kristie Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 10. 15 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Ms. Johnson’s motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Ms. Johnson filed this case on October 26, 2023 with Plaintiffs D.D., RanayJah Jackson, 18 and Ruby Jackson. Dkt. 1. The complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities 19 Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S. §§ 12101–12213), Title XIX of the Social Security Act (“Medicaid Act”) 20 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1396–1396w-7), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 21 § 794). Dkt. 7. 22 Ms. Johnson filed this motion seeking court-appointed counsel on December 1, 2023, 23 Dkt. 10. 24 1 II. DISCUSSION There is generally “no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.” Adir Int’l, LLC v. 2 Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038–39 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted). In 3 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant 4 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on 5 other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). In assessing whether there are exceptional 6 circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, the Court must evaluate (1) “the likelihood of 7 success on the merits” and (2) “the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 8 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 9 Cir. 1986). Neither factor is dispositive and “must be viewed together before reaching a decision 10 on request of counsel.” Id. 11 Exceptional circumstances may exist where the litigant has an insufficient grasp of the 12 legal issues involved or is unable to state the factual bases of their claims. See Agyeman v. Corr. 13 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 14 unusually complex due to the relevant case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub 15 nom., Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). While any litigant “certainly would be better 16 served with the assistance of counsel,” a litigant requesting counsel must show more than that 17 benefit. They must demonstrate that they are unable to articulate their position due to the 18 complexity of claims. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 19 Ms. Johnson has not identified circumstances rendering her case “exceptional” or of such 20 complexity that warrants appointment of counsel. It is too early in the case for the Court to 21 evaluate her likelihood of success on the merits. She has so far demonstrated she is able to file 22 pleadings and motions in the case. Additionally, the contents of her filings demonstrate a 23 sufficient grasp of the legal issues involved and an ability to articulate the factual bases of her 24 1 claims. While Ms. Johnson may certainly benefit from the assistance of legal counsel, she has 2 not shown significant complexity in this case or an inability to articulate her claims. See 3 Agyeman, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103–04; Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

4 III. CONCLUSION This case does not present extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of 5 counsel at this time. The Court therefore DENIES Ms. Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. This 6 order does not prevent Ms. Johnson from filing a later motion for appointment of counsel if the 7 circumstances change. The Court encourages Ms. Johnson to review this District’s resources for 8 pro se litigants, available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se, 9 including the Federal Bar Association’s civil rights legal clinic, with more information available 10 at https://www.kcba.org/?pg=Neighborhood-Legal-Clinics. 11 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 12 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 13 Dated this 8th day of January, 2024. 14 15 A 16 Tiffany M. Cartwright 17 United States District Court Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 KRISTIE JOHNSON; RANAYJAH Case No. 3:23-cv-05972-TMC 8 JACKSON; RUBY JACKSON, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 9 COUNSEL Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 BRANDI MONTS, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kristie Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 10. 15 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Ms. Johnson’s motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Ms. Johnson filed this case on October 26, 2023 with Plaintiffs D.D., RanayJah Jackson, 18 and Ruby Jackson. Dkt. 1. The complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities 19 Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S. §§ 12101–12213), Title XIX of the Social Security Act (“Medicaid Act”) 20 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1396–1396w-7), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 21 § 794). Dkt. 7. 22 Ms. Johnson filed this motion seeking court-appointed counsel on December 1, 2023, 23 Dkt. 10. 24 1 II. DISCUSSION There is generally “no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.” Adir Int’l, LLC v. 2 Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038–39 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted). In 3 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant 4 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on 5 other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). In assessing whether there are exceptional 6 circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, the Court must evaluate (1) “the likelihood of 7 success on the merits” and (2) “the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light 8 of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 9 Cir. 1986). Neither factor is dispositive and “must be viewed together before reaching a decision 10 on request of counsel.” Id. 11 Exceptional circumstances may exist where the litigant has an insufficient grasp of the 12 legal issues involved or is unable to state the factual bases of their claims. See Agyeman v. Corr. 13 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointing counsel where case was 14 unusually complex due to the relevant case law and litigant’s circumstances), cert. denied sub 15 nom., Gerber v. Agyeman, 545 U.S. 1128 (2005). While any litigant “certainly would be better 16 served with the assistance of counsel,” a litigant requesting counsel must show more than that 17 benefit. They must demonstrate that they are unable to articulate their position due to the 18 complexity of claims. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 19 Ms. Johnson has not identified circumstances rendering her case “exceptional” or of such 20 complexity that warrants appointment of counsel. It is too early in the case for the Court to 21 evaluate her likelihood of success on the merits. She has so far demonstrated she is able to file 22 pleadings and motions in the case. Additionally, the contents of her filings demonstrate a 23 sufficient grasp of the legal issues involved and an ability to articulate the factual bases of her 24 1 claims. While Ms. Johnson may certainly benefit from the assistance of legal counsel, she has 2 not shown significant complexity in this case or an inability to articulate her claims. See 3 Agyeman, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103–04; Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

4 III. CONCLUSION This case does not present extraordinary circumstances warranting the appointment of 5 counsel at this time. The Court therefore DENIES Ms. Johnson’s motion to appoint counsel. This 6 order does not prevent Ms. Johnson from filing a later motion for appointment of counsel if the 7 circumstances change. The Court encourages Ms. Johnson to review this District’s resources for 8 pro se litigants, available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se, 9 including the Federal Bar Association’s civil rights legal clinic, with more information available 10 at https://www.kcba.org/?pg=Neighborhood-Legal-Clinics. 11 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 12 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 13 Dated this 8th day of January, 2024. 14 15 A 16 Tiffany M. Cartwright 17 United States District Court Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Monts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-monts-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack