Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services

W.D. Washington

Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services

DecidedApril 17, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05299

StatusUnknown

This text of Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services (Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services) 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOSHUA EVERITT PRUEITT, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05299-KKE-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL 11 COLUMBIA RIVER MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, 12 Defendant. 13 On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint. He now moves the Court 14 to appoint counsel. Dkt.6. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel on the grounds he cannot 15 afford to hire an attorney, his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, he has limited access to a 16 law library and no legal training, and his case is complex and will require significant research 17 and investigation. 18 There is no general right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 19 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 21 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the 22 Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to 23 1 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 2 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983). 3 Here, the Court declined service of Plaintiff’s complaint because it was deficient. Thus, it 4 cannot be said Plaintiff currently has a high likelihood of successfully bringing a federal action.

5 Plaintiff’s lack of legal education and imprisonment are not exceptional or unusual 6 circumstances but rather common circumstances of plaintiff’s who are in jail. Plaintiff alleges he 7 was given the wrong dose of medication. The allegation is straightforward, not a factually or 8 legally complex and Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claims. All incarcerated 9 individuals would benefit from appointed counsel and thus Plaintiff’s request for counsel does 10 not constitute exceptional circumstance. 11 The Court accordingly ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.

13 2. The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this order. 14 DATED this 17th day of April, 2025. A 15

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOSHUA EVERITT PRUEITT, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05299-KKE-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL 11 COLUMBIA RIVER MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, 12 Defendant. 13 On April 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint. He now moves the Court 14 to appoint counsel. Dkt.6. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel on the grounds he cannot 15 afford to hire an attorney, his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, he has limited access to a 16 law library and no legal training, and his case is complex and will require significant research 17 and investigation. 18 There is no general right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 19 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only in “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 21 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the 22 Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to 23 1 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 2 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983). 3 Here, the Court declined service of Plaintiff’s complaint because it was deficient. Thus, it 4 cannot be said Plaintiff currently has a high likelihood of successfully bringing a federal action.

5 Plaintiff’s lack of legal education and imprisonment are not exceptional or unusual 6 circumstances but rather common circumstances of plaintiff’s who are in jail. Plaintiff alleges he 7 was given the wrong dose of medication. The allegation is straightforward, not a factually or 8 legally complex and Plaintiff has shown the ability to articulate his claims. All incarcerated 9 individuals would benefit from appointed counsel and thus Plaintiff’s request for counsel does 10 not constitute exceptional circumstance. 11 The Court accordingly ORDERS: 12 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.

13 2. The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this order. 14 DATED this 17th day of April, 2025. A 15

16 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Prueitt v. Columbia River Mental Health Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prueitt-v-columbia-river-mental-health-services-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack