Zelaya et al v. Tulalip Tribal Police Department et al

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(TF) cc: Pltf's Zelaya and Espinoza

Download PDF
01 02 03 04 05 06 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 07 08 09 LUIS ZELAYA, et al., 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) TULALIP TRIBAL POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) CASE NO. C13-0004-RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 15 Plaintiffs Luis Zelaya, Amy Zelaya, and Jose Espinoza, proceeding pro se in this civil 16 matter, submitted a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 3.) Having reviewed 17 plaintiffs’ motion, along with the remainder of the record, the Court finds and ORDERS as 18 follows: 19 (1) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), this Court has the discretion to appoint 20 counsel for indigent litigants proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). United States v. 21 $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court may appoint 22 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PAGE -1 01 counsel only on a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 02 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an 03 evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to 04 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 05 789 F.2d at 1331. These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a 06 request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id. 07 In this case, plaintiffs do not proceed IFP and do not provide any basis for a 08 determination that they are unable to afford counsel. (See Dkt. 3.) There is no basis for 09 referral to the Screening Committee of this Court’s pro bono panel given that plaintiffs do not 10 allege any violations of their civil rights; plaintiffs raise allegations of personal injury and 11 property damage relating to a motorcycle accident. (See Dkts. 1 & 3.) Finally, the Court 12 finds neither a likelihood of success on the merits, or a showing that, in light of the complexity 13 of the legal issues involved, plaintiffs would be unable to articulate their claims pro se. 14 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3) is DENIED. 15 (2) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable 16 Robert S. Lasnik. 17 DATED this 18th day of March, 2013. 18 19 A 20 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PAGE -2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?