Richardson v. Gilbert

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JOHN A RICHARDSON III, Case No. C19-5525 BHS-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 8 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL MARGARET GILBERT, THERESA 9 HILLIARD, SHANE EVANS, INDIVIDUAL MEDICAL STAFF, SCOTT M LIGHT, 10 JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-6, 11 Defendants. 12 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 13 62. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s request is denied without prejudice. 14 A plaintiff has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in an action under 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also 16 United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) 17 (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory.”). In 18 “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 20 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 21 The Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 22 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 23 legal issues involved”, to make an assessment whether exceptional circumstances 24 1 show that counsel should be appointed. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 2 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff 3 must plead facts that show he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue(s) 4 involved, as well as an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claim.

5 Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 Although a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, that is 7 not the test. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 8 Plaintiff argues only that he is indigent and that he has attempted, without 9 success, to retain counsel. Dkt. 62 at 2. Plaintiff has not identified conditions that render 10 this case extraordinary or set his circumstances apart from those of any other 11 incarcerated litigant. Furthermore, plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a sufficient 12 grasp of the legal issues involved in this case and has adequately articulated the basis 13 of his claim, as his complaint was sufficiently presented to pass this Court’s screening 14 and to be served upon defendant. Dkt. 15.

15 This case does not, at this time, present the extraordinary circumstances 16 required for the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. The Court 17 therefore DENIES plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. 18 19 Dated this 5th day of January, 2022. 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke 23 United States Magistrate Judge