Kendal v. Pierce County Human Services Aging & Disability Resources

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 ADRIAN KENDAL, CASE NO. C20-5148BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. SERVICES AGING & DISABILITY 12 Defendant. 13

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Adrian Kendal’s “appeal,” 14 Dkt. 14, of the Court’s Order denying her motion to appoint counsel, Dkts. 12 and 13. 15 Under Rule 54, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may be taken only 16 from a final judgment, at the end of the case, unless the Court permits an interlocutory 17 appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). If and to the extent Kendal’s filing seeks such 18 permission, it is DENIED. The Court will instead construe the filing as a Motion for 19 Reconsideration under Local Rule 7. 20 Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will 21 ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) 22 1 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court 2 earlier, through reasonable diligence. 3 As the Court explained in its prior order, Dkt. 12, no constitutional right to counsel

4 exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case unless the plaintiff may lose his physical 5 liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 6 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the discretion to 7 appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding in forma pauperis. United 8 States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995).

9 The Court will appoint counsel only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; 10 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional 11 circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and 12 the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 13 legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations omitted). These

14 factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on whether to appoint counsel 15 under § 1915(e)(1). Id. 16 Kendal has not established either that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her 17 complaint, or that she is unable to articulate her claims pro se. She has not met the 18 standard for the appointment of counsel, and she has not met the standard for the Court to

19 reconsider its prior ruling on this point. 20 \ 21 \ 22 \ 1 The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. If and to the extent Kendal also 2 seeks the Court’s permission to represent herself, such permission is not necessary, but it 3 is granted.

5 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021. A 6 7 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 8 United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22