Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al
ORDER denying dft Winter's 47 Motion to Appoint Counsel by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) cc Winter
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CRIMINAL PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Case Nos. C16-1351-RAJ
DARRELL GUNDERMAN, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Defendant Adam Winter’s Motion to
Appoint Counsel. Dkt. # 47. Having considered the motion, relevant portions of the
record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Winter’s motion.
Plaintiff Criminal Productions, LLC filed an amended complaint alleging that
Winter’s IP address was observed infringing upon its copyright to the movie, Criminal.
Dkt. # 15 at 7 (Am. Compl. ¶ 25). Winter did not file an answer within the timeframe
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Plaintiff moved for default judgment.
Dkt. # 44. Winter responded to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, but did so without
substantively responding to Plaintiff’s specific allegations. Dkt. # 46. On the same day,
Winter also filed the instant motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. # 47. Given Winter’s pro se
status, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for default pending a ruling
on his motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. # 49.
This is a civil action where, as a general matter, a defendant does not have a right
to counsel. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The court
ORDER – 1
may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101,
1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of
both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v.
Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d
952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
The Court finds that Winter has not established exceptional circumstances
necessitating the appointment of counsel. In particular, Winter has not demonstrated an
inability to articulate his legal defenses pro se. Since filing the instant motion, Winter
filed a motion to dismiss contending that the actions associated with his IP address are
unreliable evidence of copyright infringement. Dkt. # 50. According to Winter, it is
common for hackers to misappropriate IP addresses and then commit misconduct that is
wrongly attributed to the individual associated with the IP address. Id. While it is
unclear at this point whether Winter himself claims to have fallen victim to hackers, it is
clear he is able to articulate his defense to Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Winter’s Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Dkt. # 47. As previously ordered by the Court, within ten (10) days from the date of this
Order, Winter must file an answer containing substantive responses to the allegations in
Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dkt. # 49. Failure to comply with this requirement will
likely result in default judgment against Winter.
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER – 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?