Griepsma v. Wend et al

Filing 66

ORDER by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler denying plaintiff's 48 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (PM) cc: plaintiff via USPS

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 JAMES D. GRIEPSMA, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 CASE NO. C16-1843-JLR-MAT v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL CHARLIE WEND, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, 16 filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Dkt. 48.) Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion. 17 (Dkt. 49.) Now, having considered the motion, the opposition, and the remainder of the record, 18 the Court finds and concludes as follows: 19 (1) In support of his request for appointment of counsel, plaintiff notes he does not 20 have a law degree and indicates his desire for representation “by someone with adequate 21 experience who understands the Rules of Evidence, Court Rules and Jury Instructions.” (Dkt. 48.) 22 Defendants note plaintiff is no longer in custody, does not show he has made any effort to find an 23 attorney to represent him, and does not assert his claim is factually complex. Defendants maintain ORDER PAGE - 1 1 plaintiff’s complaint “borders on being malicious” and that his claims are subject to dismissal for 2 a number of reasons, and point to their multiple pending and planned motions for summary 3 judgment. (Dkt. 49 at 2-3; see also Dkts. 15, 38, 50.) 4 There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under § 1983. Although the 5 Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding IFP, it 6 may do so only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 7 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both 8 the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the individual to articulate his claims pro 9 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. 10 In this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or shown 11 that, in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims pro 12 se. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 48) is DENIED. 13 (2) 14 James L. Robart. 15 The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable DATED this 17th day of May, 2017. 16 A 17 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER PAGE - 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?