McClam v. Verhelst

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

13 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-96-RAJ-MLP

14 v. ORDER

15 KING COUNTY JAIL et al.,

16 Defendants.

18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to 19 respond to the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson’s Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) 20 21 (Dkt. # 60) and request for counsel. Dkt. # 61. The Court hereby finds and ORDERS as 22 follows: 23 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the R&R (Dkt. 24 # 60) has been GRANTED. The deadline is extended through September 21, 2020. 25 26 (2) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no 27 right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding 1 2 in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. 3 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 4 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). “Motions for 5 appointment of counsel under section 1915 are addressed to the sound discretion of the 6 7 trial court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.” United States v. 8 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). A finding of exceptional circumstances 9 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and of plaintiff’s 10 ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 11 12 involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the complexity 13 of the issues here is sufficient to necessitate the designation of counsel. 14 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge 15 Peterson. 16

17 DATED this 26th day of August, 2020. 18 A 19

20 21 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27