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
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?