Pickens v. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 MARLIN GIOVANNI PICKENS, Case No. C22-5019RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 12 v. GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO 13 SERVE VIRGINA MASON FRANCISCAN 14 HEALTH SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, et al., 15 16 Defendants.

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Marlin Pickens’s Motion to Appoint 18 Counsel and Motion for Extension of Time to Serve the individual Defendants. Dkts. #3 and 19 #8. Mr. Pickens is currently proceeding pro se after paying the filing fee. See Dkt. #1. 20 In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a 21 22 right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation 23 omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing 24 Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the 25 likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro 26 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 27 28 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 1 2 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Mr. Pickens has presented his claims with detailed factual allegations connected to legal 4 arguments. See Dkt. #1-1. The Complaint clearly demonstrates a capacity to proceed in this 5 case pro se. The Court cannot conclude at this time whether his claims have a strong likelihood 6 of success on the merits. Mr. Pickens has presented some evidence of searching for counsel 7 8 over the last two years, but has not demonstrated that a continued search is futile. He has 9 otherwise failed to set forth exceptional circumstances. Given all of the above, the Court will 10 deny this Motion. 11 Mr. Pickens has also requested additional time to serve the individual Defendants. Dkt. 12 13 #8. The Court believes that an appearance on behalf of the individual Defendants has been 14 made and that defense counsel may accept service on their behalf. In an abundance of caution, 15 the Court will grant Mr. Pickens an additional 30 days to serve these Defendants. 16 Having considered the briefing from Plaintiff and the remainder of the record, the Court 17 hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiff Marlin Pickens’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. 18 19 #3, is DENIED and that his Motion for Extension of Time to Serve the individual Defendants. 20 Dkt. #8, is GRANTED. Mr. Pickens has an additional 30 days from today’s date to serve the 21 individual Defendants. 22 DATED this 20th day of April, 2022. 23 24 A 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 26 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28