Waliezer v. Fortney

W.D. Washington

Waliezer v. Fortney

DecidedSeptember 14, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-01100

StatusUnknown

This text of Waliezer v. Fortney (Waliezer v. Fortney) 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

Waliezer v. Fortney, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 SHANE WALIEZER, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01100-RAJ-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 ADAM FORTNEY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. 18 Dkt. 6. 19 Unlike in a criminal case, in a § 1983 action, there is no constitutional right to appointed 20 counsel, and whether to appoint counsel is within this Court’s discretion. Storseth v. Spellman, 21 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 22 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). Appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(1) requires “exceptional circumstances.” See Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 24 1 Cir. 1997) (citing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1996)), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 2 (1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate “both ‘the 3 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro 4 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

5 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 6 “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together[.]” Id. 7 Plaintiff does not make any argument that he has shown the exceptional circumstances 8 meriting the appointment of counsel in this matter, other than citing his indigency. 9 Moreover, although the Court has found that solely for screening purposes, his complaint 10 is adequate to merit an order directing service on defendants, the Court is unable to determine 11 that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, at this early stage in the proceedings. 12 Plaintiff’s complaint presents a claim of excessive force used to accomplish his arrest, and he 13 appears to be capable of adequately articulating his claim. 14 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 6) is therefore DENIED without prejudice.

15 Dated this 14th day of September, 2021.

17 A 18 J. Richard Creatura 19 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 SHANE WALIEZER, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01100-RAJ-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 ADAM FORTNEY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. 18 Dkt. 6. 19 Unlike in a criminal case, in a § 1983 action, there is no constitutional right to appointed 20 counsel, and whether to appoint counsel is within this Court’s discretion. Storseth v. Spellman, 21 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 22 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). Appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(e)(1) requires “exceptional circumstances.” See Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 24 1 Cir. 1997) (citing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1996)), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 2 (1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate “both ‘the 3 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro 4 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

5 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). 6 “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together[.]” Id. 7 Plaintiff does not make any argument that he has shown the exceptional circumstances 8 meriting the appointment of counsel in this matter, other than citing his indigency. 9 Moreover, although the Court has found that solely for screening purposes, his complaint 10 is adequate to merit an order directing service on defendants, the Court is unable to determine 11 that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, at this early stage in the proceedings. 12 Plaintiff’s complaint presents a claim of excessive force used to accomplish his arrest, and he 13 appears to be capable of adequately articulating his claim. 14 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 6) is therefore DENIED without prejudice.

15 Dated this 14th day of September, 2021.

17 A 18 J. Richard Creatura 19 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Waliezer v. Fortney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waliezer-v-fortney-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack