White v. King County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KILLIAN WHITE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00618-JHC 8

Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 11 TYLER HUNT, JEFFERY PETRENCHAK, ENRICO DONAGLIA, STEVEN MINTERS, 12 MITZI JOHANKNECHT,

13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Motion for Court-Appointed 16 Counsel, for Service via the US Marshals, and for Clarification.” Dkt. # 20. The Court has 17 reviewed the motions, the rest of the case file, and the governing law. For the reasons discussed 18 below, the Court DENIES the request for counsel and DENIES without prejudice the request for 19 service via the United States Marshals Service. In response to Plaintiff’s request for 20 clarification, the Court sets September 3, 2024, as the deadline for service of process on 21 Defendants. 22 / 23 / 24 1 1. Request for Court-Appointed Counsel. 2 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. “In proceedings in forma 3 pauperis, the district court ‘may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford

4 counsel.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 5 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). But assuming Plaintiff 6 were indigent, the Court would still deny the motion for assignment of counsel. 7 As for indigent civil litigants, deciding whether to appoint such counsel is within “the 8 sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. 9 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires 10 an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to 11 articulate their claims pro se given the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. 12 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

13 Plaintiff has not shown any exceptional circumstances for the appointment of counsel. 14 The motion does not show any likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, it merely states in 15 conclusory fashion that Plaintiff’s case has merit. Nor does the case seem so complex that 16 Plaintiff cannot articulate his claims. 17 2. Request for Service via United States Marshals Service. 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), “[a]t the plaintiff's request, the court may 19 order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially 20 appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). But the court does not have to do so unless the 21 plaintiff is “authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.” Id. Plaintiff is not proceeding IFP or as a seaman. The Court 23 therefore is not required to order service. 24 l When, as here, a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) 2 “vests the Court with discretion to order service.” Chan v. Ryan, No. 22-CV-01796-LK, 2023 3 WL 197429, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023). “This discretion is exercised only in limited 4 circumstances, such as when a law enforcement presence appears necessary or advisable to keep 5 || the peace or when a hostile defendant threatens injury to the process server.” /d. (quotation 6 marks and citation omitted). Mindful that Rule 4 was amended mainly to relieve the marshals 7 from having to effect service in private actions, courts often require a showing that a non-IFP g || plaintiff attempted some form of proper service. Bax v. Executive Off. for U.S. Attorneys, 216 g ||F.R.D. 4 (D.C. Col. 2003); Oliver v. City of Oceanside, No. 16-CV-00565-BAS(JLB), 2016 WL 10 8730533, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2016). Plaintiffs seeking court-ordered service should set forth 11 what steps they have already taken to accomplish service and explain why a court order is 12. ||mecessary. Here, Plaintiff has not done so. 3. Conclusion. 4 Thus, the Court DENIES the request for counsel and DENIES without prejudice the request for service via the United States Marshals Service. And the Court sets September 3, 2024, as Plaintiff's deadline for service of process on Defendants. Dated this 14th day of June, 2024. 18 19 Clb 4. Chur John H. Chun 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24