Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources

W.D. Washington

Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources

DecidedJanuary 12, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-05148

StatusUnknown

This text of Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources (Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources) 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

Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ADRIAN KENDAL, CASE NO. C20-5148 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGING & DISABILITY 11 RESOURCES, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Adrian Kendal’s Motion 14 for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 12. Kendal is proceeding in forma pauperis. 15 No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case 16 unless the plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. 17 Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are 19 proceeding in forma pauperis. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 20 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 22 1 The Court will appoint counsel only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; 2 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional 3 circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and

4 the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 5 legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). These 6 factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on whether to appoint counsel 7 under § 1915(e)(1). Id. 8 While Kendal has established her indigency, she has not attempted to establish,

9 and has not established, that exceptional circumstances exist, supporting appointing her 10 counsel. She has not established that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim. 11 Her Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. 12, is therefore DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated this 12th day of January, 2021. A 14 15 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22

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

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ADRIAN KENDAL, CASE NO. C20-5148 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGING & DISABILITY 11 RESOURCES, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Adrian Kendal’s Motion 14 for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 12. Kendal is proceeding in forma pauperis. 15 No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case 16 unless the plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. 17 Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are 19 proceeding in forma pauperis. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 20 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 22 1 The Court will appoint counsel only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; 2 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional 3 circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and

4 the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 5 legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). These 6 factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on whether to appoint counsel 7 under § 1915(e)(1). Id. 8 While Kendal has established her indigency, she has not attempted to establish,

9 and has not established, that exceptional circumstances exist, supporting appointing her 10 counsel. She has not established that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim. 11 Her Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. 12, is therefore DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated this 12th day of January, 2021. A 14 15 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendal-v-pierce-county-human-services-aging-disability-resources-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack