Robinson v. Renton City Jail Chief Manager et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying Pltf's 25 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. cc R. Robinson(VP)

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

7 REGINALD ROBINSON, 8 9 v. Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C08-1359-JCC-BAT ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

10 RENTON CITY JAIL, CHIEF MANAGER, et al., 11 Defendants, 12 13

Plaintiff is a Washington state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

14 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkts. 7, 8. On January 12, 2009, the Court received plaintiff's 15 motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 25. Having reviewed the motion and the balance of the 16 record, the Court does hereby find and ORDER as follows: 17 (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 25) is hereby DENIED. There is

18 no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma 20 pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 21 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation 22 of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his 23 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Plaintiff requests that

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ­ 1

1 counsel be appointed because he is a "layman at law" and a prisoner of defendants who have 2 control over him and thus his access to the "case laws and authorities." Dkt. 25 at 1. These are 3 not exceptional circumstances calling for appointment of counsel. If they were, counsel would 4 have to be appointed in every pro se case involving a person in custody. Although plaintiff is a 5 layman, his filings indicate that he is able to articulate his claims. His filings also do not 6 demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Accordingly, the Court denies his 7 request for appointment of counsel. 8 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

9 defendants, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DATED this 23rd day of January, 2009.

A

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ­ 2