Heggem v. Holmes et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying plaintiff's 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A COPY OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN MAILED TO PLAINTIFF TODAY. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ANDREA HOLMES, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )

08 LARRY GENE HEGGEM, 09 10 11 12 13 14

CASE NO. C10-1997-RSM-MAT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff Larry Gene Heggem moves for appointment of counsel to represent him in his

15 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action. (Dkt. 15.) Having considered the papers and the entire 16 record, the Court DENIES his motion for appointment of counsel. 17 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141

18 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). A court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil 19 litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but an appointment of counsel should only be 20 granted under "exceptional circumstances." Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 21 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether "exceptional circumstances" exist, the 22 Court considers "the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PAGE -1

01 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt 02 v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983). 03 Plaintiff alleges that three reasons justify appointment of counsel: (1) he has no access

04 to the law library; (2) he has no way to make copy of his documents and lacks legal knowledge; 05 and (3) he is ill with cancer. (Dkt. 15, at 1.) The Court finds that these alleged reasons do not

06 constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has failed 07 to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and he has shown proficiency in 08 articulating claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and denial of due 09 process. Furthermore, the Court notes that none of plaintiff's stated concerns have impeded 10 his ability to file in this district over the past several months three pending civil-rights cases 11 and letters requesting copies in two other closed cases. See No. 11-337-MJP-MAT (opened 12 Feb. 24, 2011); C10-1997-RSM-MAT (present matter, opened Dec. 9, 2010); No. 13 C10-1724-RSL-JPD (opened Oct. 22, 2010); No. 07-1143-RAJ (letter filed Oct. 29, 2010); No. 14 C09-311-JCC (letter filed Oct. 18, 2010). Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 15 23) is DENIED. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DATED this 1st day of March, 2011.

A

Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PAGE -2