Rubio v. Mason County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 BRANDON J. RUBIO, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-5435-JLR-SKV 10 v. ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 MASON COUNTY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 15 action relating to his confinement at Mason County Jail. Plaintiff filed two motions to appoint 16 counsel. Dkts. 24 & 27. Having now considered those motions, the Court finds as follows: 17 (1) There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under § 1983. 18 Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party 19 proceeding IFP, it may do so only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. 20 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A finding of exceptional circumstances 21 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 22 individual to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 23 Id. 1 In his motions, Plaintiff describes his extensive, but unsuccessful efforts to obtain 2 counsel. Dkts. 24 & 27. He asserts his belief that his claims are complex and meritorious, states 3 that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate, and notes that he has limited access 4 to the law library and limited knowledge of the law. Id.

5 The Court, however, finds that the record in this case is not yet sufficiently developed for 6 the Court to make a determination as to either the likelihood of success on the merits or 7 Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se. Based on the information available at this 8 juncture, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional 9 circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of 10 counsel, Dkts. 24 & 27, are therefore denied. The denial is without prejudice to the renewal of 11 the request at a later date. 12 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the 13 Honorable James L. Robart. 14 Dated this 11th day of December, 2023.

15 A 16 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23