Rubio v. Public Health Seattle King Co et al

Filing 29

ORDER by Hon. James P. Donohue denying plaintiff's third 27 motion for appointment of counsel. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Brandon Rubio, Prisoner ID: 374023)(PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 BRANDON J. RUBIO, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No. C16-1269-JCC-JPD v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 12 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 third motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s 16 first two motions for appointment of counsel were previously denied by the Court. (See Dkts. 17 16, 19 and 21.) Plaintiff now, once again, asks that counsel be appointed to represent him in this 18 action. (Dkt. 27.) Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. 28.) The Court, having reviewed 19 plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ response, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and 20 ORDERS as follows: 21 22 (1) Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 27) is DENIED. As plaintiff was previously advised, there is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1 1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel 2 to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional 3 circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. 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. 8 9 Defendants correctly note in their response to plaintiff’s motion that the instant motion differs little, if at all, from plaintiff’s previous requests for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff 10 argues that he is unable to afford counsel, that his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate 11 this action because the issues involved are complex and will require significant research and 12 investigation, and that counsel would be better able to present evidence and cross-examine 13 witnesses at trial. The Court considered these same arguments in denying plaintiff’s prior 14 motions for appointment of counsel. 15 The only piece of new information plaintiff offers in the instant motion is that the Pro 16 Bono Screening Committee has reviewed a motion for appointment of counsel filed by plaintiff 17 in another pending civil rights action, Rubio v. DeJesus, C16-1307-JCC, and that the Screening 18 Committee has recommended counsel be appointed in that case. However, the fact that 19 appointment of counsel may have been deemed appropriate in another case does not alter this 20 Court’s conclusion that plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional 21 circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s third motion for appointment of 22 counsel is therefore denied. 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2 1 2 3 4 5 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour. DATED this 22nd day of February, 2017. A JAMES P. DONOHUE Chief United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 3

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?