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)

Download PDF
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

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?