Seijo v. Bradlow

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JOSUE SEIJO, Case No. C22-903 TSZ-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 REBECCA BRADLOW, 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 12 counsel. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court has considered the 13 record and finds that plaintiff’s motion for counsel should be denied at this time, without 14 prejudice. Plaintiff will be allowed to renew this motion if, at a later time in the 15 proceedings, exceptional circumstances would require appointment of counsel. 16 In a § 1983 action there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel. 17 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also United States v. 18 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of 19 counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory.”). In “exceptional 20 circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), 22 overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 24 1 The Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the 2 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 3 legal issues involved.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (quotations 4 omitted). A plaintiff must plead facts that show he has an insufficient grasp of his case

5 or the legal issue involved, and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his 6 claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 7 Here, plaintiff filed his complaint pro se and has demonstrated an ability to 8 articulate his claims pro se in a clear fashion understandable to this Court. Plaintiff’s 9 allegations show this is not a complex case on the facts or law. In addition, plaintiff has 10 not shown a likelihood that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. While 11 plaintiff may not have vast resources or legal training, he meets the threshold for a pro 12 se litigant. 13 Thus, plaintiff has failed in his burden to demonstrate an inability to present his 14 claims to this Court without counsel, or to show that exceptional circumstances require

15 the Court to appoint counsel at this stage. See generally, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for 16 Southern dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not allow a 17 federal court to coercively appoint counsel); James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320, 330-331 (7th 18 Cir. 2018) (en banc) (district courts may ask, but not compel, a lawyer to represent an 19 indigent litigant). 20 The Court DENIES the motion (Dkt. 17) without prejudice. Plaintiff will be allowed 21 to renew this motion if, later in the proceedings, exceptional circumstances would 22 require appointment of counsel. 23

24 1 Dated this 26th day of October, 2022. 2 3 A 4 Theresa L. Fricke 5 United States Magistrate Judge

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24