Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services

W.D. Washington

Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided April 17, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-05299·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05299-KKE-BAT v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL SERVICES, Defendant. On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint. He now moves the Court to appoint counsel. Dkt.6. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel on the grounds he cannot afford to hire an attorney, his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, he has limited access to a law library and no legal training, and his case is complex and will require significant research and investigation. There is no general right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 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). Here, the Court declined service of Plaintiff’s complaint because it was deficient. Thus, it cannot be said Plaintiff currently has a high likelihood of successfully bringing a federal action.

Plaintiff’s lack of legal education and imprisonment are not exceptional or unusual circumstances but rather common circumstances of plaintiff’s who are in jail. Plaintiff alleges he was given the wrong dose of medication. The allegation is straightforward, not a factually or legally complex and Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claims. All incarcerated individuals would benefit from appointed counsel and thus Plaintiff’s request for counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstance. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.

2. The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this order. DATED this 17th day of April, 2025. A

United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05299-KKE-BAT v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL SERVICES, Defendant. On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint. He now moves the Court to appoint counsel. Dkt.6. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel on the grounds he cannot afford to hire an attorney, his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, he has limited access to a law library and no legal training, and his case is complex and will require significant research and investigation. There is no general right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] 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). Here, the Court declined service of Plaintiff’s complaint because it was deficient. Thus, it cannot be said Plaintiff currently has a high likelihood of successfully bringing a federal action.

Plaintiff’s lack of legal education and imprisonment are not exceptional or unusual circumstances but rather common circumstances of plaintiff’s who are in jail. Plaintiff alleges he was given the wrong dose of medication. The allegation is straightforward, not a factually or legally complex and Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claims. All incarcerated individuals would benefit from appointed counsel and thus Plaintiff’s request for counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstance. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.

2. The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this order. DATED this 17th day of April, 2025. A

United States Magistrate Judge

Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services (Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related