Holland v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (cc: plaintiff)(ST)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

JOSEPH L. HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Case No. C17-0170-RSM-MAT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

v.
CITY OF SEATTLE , et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13

This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before

14

the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. The Court, having

15

reviewed plaintiff’s motion, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:

16

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 12) is DENIED. There is no

17

right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court,

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma

19

pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

20

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe

21

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

22

evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate

23

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1

While the Court has determined that plaintiff’s amended complaint is deficient and must

2

therefore be amended if he wishes to proceed with this action, plaintiff gives no indication that he

3

lacks the ability to articulate his claims pro se. As for plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits

4

of his claims, the record is not yet sufficiently developed for this Court to make such a

5

determination. Based on the information available to the Court at this juncture, this Court must

6

conclude that plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional circumstances

7

which warrant the appointment of counsel.

8
9
10

(2)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable

Ricardo S. Martinez.
DATED this 26th day of June, 2017.

11

A

12

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2