Cui v. Chen et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

LUE QIONG CUI,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.
12
13
14
15

XIAO BING CHEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
) CASE NO. C17-00039RSM
)
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) APPOINT COUNSEL
)
)
)
)
)

16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt. #7.
17
18

Plaintiff’s Motion fails to indicate a financial need for counsel. Dkt. #7 at 1. The Motion

19

indicates that this case was transferred from other state jurisdictions, however Plaintiff fails to

20

explain previous efforts to retain an attorney. Id. at 2. Under “Merits of Claim,” Plaintiff

21

writes simply, “[t]he truth can’t be hide (sic) as required by CBP.” Id.
22
23

In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil

24

litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997),

25

overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional

26

circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and]

27

the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1

1

issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting

2

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he

3

has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to

4

articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d

5

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
6
7

In this case the Court has insufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff is

8

capable of preparing his own case or whether there is any likelihood of success on the merits.

9

Plaintiff’s Motion is devoid of any of the above necessary information. The Court therefore

10

finds that this case lacks the “exceptional circumstances” necessary to appoint counsel and will

11

deny Plaintiff’s Motion.
12
13

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,

14

and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to

15

Appoint Counsel (Dkt. #7) is DENIED.

16
17
18
19
20
21

DATED this 7th day of April, 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 2