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

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., http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/

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