White v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL ALBERT WHITE, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05095-BJR-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 12 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before this Court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 11; see also Dkts. 17 16–17. After reviewing the relevant record before this Court, the Court finds that the interests of 18 justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Therefore, the motion is denied. 19 Although indigent defendants in criminal cases are entitled to appointed counsel, there is 20 no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 civil action. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 21 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 22 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is discretionary, not 23 mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for 24 1 indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand 2 v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 3 Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the 4 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro 5 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

6 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff 7 must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and 8 an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. 9 of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 Here, in support of his motion, plaintiff states that he is incarcerated and is not privy to a 11 list of attorneys who may be interested in his case. See Dkt. 17, at 3. However, that is not an 12 exceptional circumstance compelling the Court to appoint counsel at this early stage. There is no 13 dispositive motion pending and the discovery deadline is not until November 12, 2021. See Dkt. 14 20. Also, plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits, at this point.

15 Furthermore, the facts and legal issues do not appear to be unusually complex such that 16 plaintiff could not articulate his claims pro se. Without the assistance of an attorney, plaintiff has 17 managed to file a complaint alleging that he has been denied medical treatment, has moved the 18 court to serve defendants, and has filed this motion. See Dkts. 4–5, 11. 19 Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel at this early stage is denied 20 without prejudice, meaning that plaintiff may renew the motion at a later date upon a showing of 21 exceptional circumstances. The Court also observes that plaintiff appears to have mistakenly 22 believed that he was represented by an attorney for the defendants. See Dkt. 17. The Court has 23 24 1 not appointed an attorney to represent plaintiff, so plaintiff must proceed in pro se at this time, 2 unless he obtains his own counsel. 3 Therefore, it is ORDERED: 4 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 11) is denied. 5 (2) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

6 Dated this 6th day of July, 2021. 7 A 8 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24