Teton v. Federal Detention Center Seatac

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RYDON CLYDE TETON, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01615-JCC-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, DKT. 11 FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER SEATAC, et al., 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Federal Detention Center, SeaTac, filed a pro se civil rights 14 complaint raising several claims. The Court recommended on October 29, 2024 the complaint be 15 found insufficient or filed in the wrong federal district. Dkt. 10. 16 Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 9. The Court, having reviewed 17 Plaintiff’s motion and the record ORDERS: 18 (1) The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for counsel. Dkt. 9. As Plaintiff 19 acknowledges, a person filing a civil lawsuit generally has no right to counsel. See Campbell v. 20 Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil 21 litigant but only if “exceptional circumstances” exist. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 22 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court 23 considers the likelihood of success on the merits, and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate her 1 claims pro se given the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 2 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff argues the Court should appoint counsel because he cannot afford 3 to hire a lawyer, but this rationale applies to most pro se prisoner lawsuits and thus is not an 4 exceptional circumstance. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims are currently deficient.

5 (2) The Clerk shall provide Plaintiff a copy of this order. 6 DATED this 7th day of November, 2024. 7 A 8 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23