Manson v. State of Washington Health Care Authority et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge James L. Robart denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (PM) cc: Plaintiff via the USPS

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 DARYL MANSON, CASE NO. C17-0207JLR ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 14 STATE OF WASHINGTON HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Plaintiff Daryl Manson’s motion to appoint counsel. (Mot. 18 (Dkt. # 9).) Mr. Manson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See 19 Compl. (Dkt. # 4); IFP Order (Dkt. # 3).) Defendants State of Washington Health Care 20 Authority (“the HCA”) and Northwest Hospital (“Northwest”) (collectively, 21 “Defendants”) oppose Mr. Manson’s motion. (NW Resp. (Dkt. # 12); HCA Resp. (Dkt. 22 # 13).) The court has considered Mr. Manson’s motion, the parties’ submissions in ORDER - 1 1 support of and opposition to the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the 2 applicable law. Being fully advised,1 the court DENIES Mr. Manson’s motion for the 3 reasons set forth below. 4 II. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS 5 Mr. Manson filed this suit on February 9, 2017. (See IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) 6 Although Mr. Manson’s complaint is difficult to follow, it appears that he alleges that the 7 HCA violated his privacy by disclosing his personal health information (Compl. at 4-9) 8 and that Northwest committed medical malpractice during Mr. Manson’s treatment there 9 in January 2016 (id. at 10-15). 10 On March 7, 2017, Mr. Manson filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Evidentiary 11 Exhibits.” (See Mot. at 1.) In that document, Mr. Manson states that he “in reality would 12 like court[-]appointed counsel.” (Id. at 6.) The court construed Mr. Manson’s filing as a 13 motion to appoint counsel. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 14 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that courts must liberally construe pro se filings). 15 A district court has “discretion to designate counsel to represent an indigent civil 16 litigant.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); see also 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 18 counsel.”). The court may only do so, however, in “exceptional circumstances.” 19 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; see also Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 20 (9th Cir. 2004). The court may find exceptional circumstances after evaluating “the 21 1 22 No party requested oral argument, and the court determines that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). ORDER - 2 1 likelihood of success on the merits” and “the ability of the petitioner to articulate his 2 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d 3 at 1331. The court must analyze both of these factors together before deciding whether to 4 appoint counsel under Section 1915(e)(1). See id. The plaintiff seeking counsel bears the 5 burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances.2 Brogdon v. City of Phoenix Police 6 Dep’t, No. CV-11-01389-PHX-RCB(MEA), 2013 WL 3155116, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 19, 7 2013). 8 Mr. Manson makes no argument as to the likelihood of success on the merits of his 9 claims (see generally Mot.), whereas Defendants argue that Mr. Manson’s complaint 10 suffers from jurisdictional defects and fails to state a claim (see NW Resp. at 2; HCA 11 Resp. at 2). The court therefore cannot conclude that Mr. Manson is likely to succeed on 12 the merits. Second, any difficulty Mr. Manson will experience in attempting to litigate 13 his case does not stem “from the complexity of the issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d 14 at 1331. Indeed, the privacy violations and medical malpractice claims that Mr. Manson 15 appears to allege are not especially complex. (See Compl. at 4-15; Mot. at 6-7 (stating 16 only that “the intricacies are far to[o] chilling and strange”).) That Mr. Manson might 17 find “it difficult to articulate his claims pro se” is insufficient to demonstrate that his case 18 involves complex legal issues. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Accordingly, Mr. Manson 19 // 20 2 21 22 Defendants have each filed a motion to dismiss (HCA MTD (Dkt. # 8); NW MTD (Dkt. # 11)), but district courts may not dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s complaint prior to ruling on his motion for appointment of counsel, see Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). ORDER - 3 1 fails to meet his burden of establishing exceptional circumstances that warrant the 2 appointment of counsel. See Brogdon, 2013 WL 3155116, at *1. 3 III. 4 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Manson’s motion to appoint 5 counsel (Dkt. # 9). The court directs Mr. Manson to the Western District of 6 Washington’s website, which provides materials to assist pro se litigants. See 7 Representing Yourself (“Pro Se”), W. DIST. OF WASH., 8 representing-yourself-pro-se; E-Pro Se, W. DIST. OF WASH., http://www.wawd.uscourts. 9 gov/pro-se/e-pro-se. 10 Dated this 31st day of March, 2017. 11 12 A 13 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 4

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?