Melegh v. Pennell

W.D. Washington

Melegh v. Pennell

DecidedSeptember 29, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01490

StatusUnknown

This text of Melegh v. Pennell (Melegh v. Pennell) 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

Melegh v. Pennell, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DANIELLA K. MELEGH, 8 NO. C23-1490RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT 10 OF COUNSEL KERI NELSON PENNELL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s application for court-appointed counsel. 15 Dkt. # 6. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 17 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 19 Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court 20 must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 21 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of 22 these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. 23 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate her 26 27 ORDER DENYING 1 claim of disability discrimination. The facts she alleges and the issues she raises are not overly 2 complicated. Although more details may be needed to adequately state and prove a legal claim 3 based on the facts alleged, see Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 4 603 F.3d 666, 669–70 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that a claim under Title III of the Americans with 5 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires a showing that plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the 6 7 ADA, that defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public 8 accommodation, and that plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because 9 of her disability), there is nothing to suggest that plaintiff is incapable of providing those details. 10 Plaintiff has not shown the sort of exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel 11 at the public’s expense. 12 13 14 For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 6) is 15 DENIED. 16 17 Dated this 29th day of September, 2023. 18 19 20 21 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER DENYING

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 SEATTLE 7 DANIELLA K. MELEGH, 8 NO. C23-1490RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT 10 OF COUNSEL KERI NELSON PENNELL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s application for court-appointed counsel. 15 Dkt. # 6. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 17 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 19 Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court 20 must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the 21 petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of 22 these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. 23 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 Plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient writing ability and legal knowledge to articulate her 26 27 ORDER DENYING 1 claim of disability discrimination. The facts she alleges and the issues she raises are not overly 2 complicated. Although more details may be needed to adequately state and prove a legal claim 3 based on the facts alleged, see Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 4 603 F.3d 666, 669–70 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that a claim under Title III of the Americans with 5 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires a showing that plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the 6 7 ADA, that defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public 8 accommodation, and that plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because 9 of her disability), there is nothing to suggest that plaintiff is incapable of providing those details. 10 Plaintiff has not shown the sort of exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel 11 at the public’s expense. 12 13 14 For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 6) is 15 DENIED. 16 17 Dated this 29th day of September, 2023. 18 19 20 21 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER DENYING

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melegh v. Pennell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melegh-v-pennell-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack