Nanez v. Sapp

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 SHAWN DALE NANEZ, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05293-RSL-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 APPOINT COUNSEL PENELOPE SAPP, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Shawn Dale Nanez’s 17 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 31. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is 18 DENIED without prejudice. 19 There is no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in § 1983 actions. Storseth v. 20 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 21 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Appointment of counsel under this section is discretionary, 22 not mandatory.”). And district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 23 prisoners in such cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). 24 Nonetheless, a district court may request that an attorney voluntarily represent an indigent 1 plaintiff but only in “exceptional circumstances.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 2 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 3 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 4 This Court’s Plan and procedures for requesting pro bono representation in prisoner civil

5 rights actions is outlined in General Order 07-23. Under the Court’s Plan, pro se plaintiffs must 6 submit the following when seeking appointment of voluntary counsel in civil rights actions: 7 [Section 3] (b) Motion and Declaration of Pro Se Litigant. Any motion for the appointment of counsel by a party appearing pro se in a civil rights action shall 8 include a declaration [1] stating the party’s efforts to obtain counsel by means other than appointment, including having connected with at least two other 9 attorneys without securing representation, and [2] identifying any prior pro bono appointments of counsel to represent the party in cases brought in this Court, 10 including both pending and previously terminated actions. The declaration should further [3] state whether the pro se litigant has already pursued another action, such 11 as a wage claim or agency claim, before proceeding with their federal action. A completed copy of a declaration [4] stating the movant cannot afford to hire an 12 attorney shall be attached to the motion. 13 Id. at 5 (emphasis added). As the current record lacks the required declaration, the Court is 14 unable to appoint voluntary counsel even if it were to determine such an appointment was 15 warranted at this time. 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to file a 17 declaration in accordance with the Court’s Plan for Representation of Pro Se Litigants in Civil 18 Rights Actions, General Order 07-23. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of 19 General Order 07-23 (effective Jan. 1, 2024) along with a copy of this Order. 20 Dated this 18th day of December, 2024. 21 A 22 Grady J. Leupold 23 United States Magistrate Judge