Perez v. Cogburn

W.D. Washington

Perez v. Cogburn

DecidedJanuary 5, 2021

Docket2:18-cv-01800

StatusUnknown

This text of Perez v. Cogburn (Perez v. Cogburn) 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

Perez v. Cogburn, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01800-JLR-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 CALVIN COGBURN, ET AL., 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion to expedite 14 review of the second motion for appointment. Dkt. 139 and 140. As the Court noted in the first 15 order denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, there is no right to counsel in a civil 16 action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court appoints counsel for 17 indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only under “exceptional circumstances.” 18 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To assess whether 19 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as 20 well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 21 legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22

23 1 Plaintiff contends he requires counsel because he is indigent and cannot retain counsel, 2 the issues in his case are complex, he has had problems obtaining discovery from the defendants, 3 he has no legal training, and he would be better served if represented by counsel. These are 4 essentially the same arguments plaintiff raised in his first motion for counsel. See Dkt. 48.

5 Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of “exceptional circumstances” to support his 6 request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is plainly capable of articulating his claims pro se. 7 The docket establishes plaintiff has filed numerous typed pleadings that demonstrate he is 8 familiar with the court rules and law pertaining to his claims. As noted in the first order denying 9 counsel, this is not a complex case involving complex facts or law. The complaint alleges 10 defendants violated plaintiff’s rights by involuntarily administering anti-psychotic medications. 11 Appointment of counsel is therefore not justified at this time, and the Court DENIES the motion. 12 Dkt. 139, 140. 13 The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 14 DATED this 5th day of January 2020.

15 A 16 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01800-JLR-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 CALVIN COGBURN, ET AL., 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion to expedite 14 review of the second motion for appointment. Dkt. 139 and 140. As the Court noted in the first 15 order denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, there is no right to counsel in a civil 16 action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court appoints counsel for 17 indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only under “exceptional circumstances.” 18 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To assess whether 19 “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as 20 well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 21 legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 22

23 1 Plaintiff contends he requires counsel because he is indigent and cannot retain counsel, 2 the issues in his case are complex, he has had problems obtaining discovery from the defendants, 3 he has no legal training, and he would be better served if represented by counsel. These are 4 essentially the same arguments plaintiff raised in his first motion for counsel. See Dkt. 48.

5 Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of “exceptional circumstances” to support his 6 request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is plainly capable of articulating his claims pro se. 7 The docket establishes plaintiff has filed numerous typed pleadings that demonstrate he is 8 familiar with the court rules and law pertaining to his claims. As noted in the first order denying 9 counsel, this is not a complex case involving complex facts or law. The complaint alleges 10 defendants violated plaintiff’s rights by involuntarily administering anti-psychotic medications. 11 Appointment of counsel is therefore not justified at this time, and the Court DENIES the motion. 12 Dkt. 139, 140. 13 The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 14 DATED this 5th day of January 2020.

15 A 16 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Perez v. Cogburn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-cogburn-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack