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)

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