Melegh v. Providence Health & Services

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DANIELLA KATALIN MELEGH, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01704-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & 11 SERVICES, SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER, and LAURA, 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff Danielle Katalin Melegh proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in 15 this civil rights lawsuit against Providence Health & Services, Swedish Medical 16 Center, and “Laura,” Swedish Orthopedic Clinic’s manager, for alleged disability 17 discrimination. Dkt. No. 4. 18 1. DISCUSSION 19 On November 8, 2023, Melegh requested that the Court appoint counsel to 20 represent her. Dkt. No. 6. Melegh has contacted more than ten attorneys for 21 assistance with this matter. Id. at 2. She has also contacted the DOJ for assistance. 22 Id. 23 1 Although there is “no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case,” Adir Int’l, 2 LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal

3 citation omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 861, (2022), a “court may request an 4 attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). 5 The Western District of Washington has implemented a plan for court- 6 appointed representation of civil rights litigants. See General Order No. 07-23 (Sept. 7 8, 2023). Before forwarding a case to the Pro Bono Screening Committee, the Court 8 must review whether the plaintiff is financially eligible and assess the case to

9 determine that it is not frivolous. 10 First, Melegh is financially eligible for referral to the Screening Committee, 11 as she has been granted in forma pauperis status. Dkt. No. 4. See also Ivey v. Bd. of 12 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Plaintiff in this case clearly satisfied 13 the financial requisites to appointment of counsel, for the district court permitted 14 him to proceed in forma pauperis, which requires a greater showing of indigency 15 than is required for appointment of counsel.”).

16 Second, Melegh’s claims are not frivolous. She has alleged disability 17 discrimination in a healthcare setting. 18 The Court finds that Melegh’s case is not frivolous and that she is financially 19 eligible for referral to the Screening Committee. For these reasons, the Court will 20 refer Melegh’s case to the Pro Bono Screening Committee. 21 2. CONCLUSION

22 The Court orders as follows: 23 1 1. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward copies of the 2 pleadings and documents filed to date to the Screening Committee

3 including the following: Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (Dkt. No. 4 1), Complaint (Dkt. No. 5), Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. No. 6), 5 Proposed Amendment to Complaint (Dkt. No. 8), Second Proposed 6 Amendment to Complaint (Dkt. No. 9), and the instant Order. 7 2. In light of the Court’s referral to the Pro Bono Screening Committee, this 8 matter is STAYED pending the Screening Committee’s determination.

9 3. The Screening Committee is DIRECTED to review this case and 10 recommend to the Court whether appointment of pro bono counsel is 11 warranted per General Order No. 07-23 no later than May 3, 2024. 12 4. Plaintiff is REMINDED that the referral to the Screening Committee does 13 not guarantee that she will be provided pro bono counsel. 14 15 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2024.

16 A 17 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 18

20 21 22 23