Donnelly v. Snohomish County Corrections et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying plaintiff's 17 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and RENOTING defendants' 16 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM for 11/28/2014. A copy of this Order has been mailed to plaintiff today. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.(GB)

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

6
7
8

DEREK JOHN DONNELLY,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

CASE NO. C14-1054-MJP-MAT

v.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS,
et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL AND RE-NOTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.
13
14

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before

15

the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. The Court,

16

having reviewed plaintiff’s request, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as

17

follows:

18

(1)

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 17) is DENIED. Plaintiff

19

indicates in his letter requesting counsel that he was recently transferred from the Washington

20

Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to the King County Jail (“KCJ”) to deal with pending

21

criminal charges and that he was not permitted to bring his legal work with him. He therefore

22

requests that he be assigned counsel, or stand-by counsel, to assist him with this matter.

23

Plaintiff is advised that there is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND RENOTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 1

1

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to

2

represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional

3

circumstances.

4

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980).

5

A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success

6

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

7

complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v.

8

Plaintiff has not, at this juncture, demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor

9

shown that, in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his

10

claims pro se.

11

circumstances which warrant appointment of counsel at the present time.
(2)

12

Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional

While the Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this

13

time, the Court is willing to grant plaintiff some additional time to respond to defendants’

14

pending motion to dismiss given his current lack of access to his legal materials. Plaintiff

15

indicated in a recent letter advising the Court of his temporary change of address that he

16

expected to be at KCJ until the end of October and then to be transferred back to DOC custody.

17

(See Dkt. 15.) In an effort to accommodate this schedule, the Court will grant plaintiff an

18

extension of time until November 24, 2014 to file and serve a response to defendants’ pending

19

motion to dismiss. Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 16) is RENOTED on the Court’s calendar for

20

consideration on November 28, 2014.
(3)

21

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

22

defendants, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

23

///
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND RENOTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 2

1
2
3
4

DATED this 29th day of October, 2014.

A
Mary Alice Theiler
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND RENOTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 3