Smith v. Dougherty et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying plaintiff's 25 Second Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

LISA SMITH,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
MEGAN DOHTRY, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

)
) CASE NO. C16-1818 RSM
)
)
) SECOND ORDER DENYING MOTION
) TO APPOINT COUNSEL
)
)
)
)

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Appoint Counsel.

16

Dkt. #25. In a prior motion to appoint counsel, Plaintiff stated that she contacted one attorney in

17

April 2016 and one attorney in July 2016. Dkt. #8. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed

18

in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #6. The Complaint was filed on November 30, 2016.

19
20

Defendants appeared on April 17, 2017. Dkt. #19.

21

In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a

22

right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation

23

omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing

24

Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the

25
26

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se

27

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954

28

(9th Cir. 1983). Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1
2

litigant’s chances of success are extremely slim. See Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th
Cir. 1985).

3

At this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is entitled to

4

appointment of counsel. It does not yet appear that any exceptional circumstances exist, and

5

there is no record before the Court that would allow the Court to adequately examine whether
6
7
8

Plaintiff's claims appear to have merit. Moreover, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend her
Complaint, which remains pending at this time. Dkt. #27.

9

Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint

10

Counsel (Dkt. #25) is DENIED without prejudice. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from

11

re-filing this Motion once a factual record pertaining to her claims has been more fully developed.
12
13

DATED this 16th day of June 2017.

14

A

15

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2