Lozano v. Lauritzen

W.D. Washington

Lozano v. Lauritzen

DecidedJanuary 7, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-06197

StatusUnknown

This text of Lozano v. Lauritzen (Lozano v. Lauritzen) 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

Lozano v. Lauritzen, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 WILLIAM EARL LOZANO, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-6197-BHS-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT 12 v. COUNSEL 13 MICHAEL LAURITZEN, JONATHAN W. PEDERSEN, 14 Defendants. 15

16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 17 Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Plaintiff William Earl Lozano’s 18 Motion for Court Appointed Counsel. Dkt. 5. 19 No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. 20 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. 21 Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is 22 discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may 23 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 24 1 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other 2 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the 3 Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the 4 [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”

5 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 6 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp 7 of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of 8 his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 Plaintiff requests Court-appointed counsel because he believes his due process claim has 10 merit and he has the necessary proof to support his claim. Dkt. 5 at 4. Plaintiff has not shown, 11 nor does the Court find, this case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff has also not shown an 12 inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court, nor 13 has he shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 14 (Dkt. 5) is denied without prejudice.

15 Dated this 7th day of January, 2020. 16 A 17 David W. Christel 18 United States Magistrate 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 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 WILLIAM EARL LOZANO, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-6197-BHS-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO APPOINT 12 v. COUNSEL 13 MICHAEL LAURITZEN, JONATHAN W. PEDERSEN, 14 Defendants. 15

16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 17 Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Plaintiff William Earl Lozano’s 18 Motion for Court Appointed Counsel. Dkt. 5. 19 No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. 20 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. 21 Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is 22 discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may 23 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 24 1 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other 2 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the 3 Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the 4 [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”

5 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 6 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp 7 of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of 8 his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 Plaintiff requests Court-appointed counsel because he believes his due process claim has 10 merit and he has the necessary proof to support his claim. Dkt. 5 at 4. Plaintiff has not shown, 11 nor does the Court find, this case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff has also not shown an 12 inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court, nor 13 has he shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 14 (Dkt. 5) is denied without prejudice.

15 Dated this 7th day of January, 2020. 16 A 17 David W. Christel 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lozano v. Lauritzen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lozano-v-lauritzen-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack