Krona v. DOC et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 9 Motions; plaintiff's motion for an attorney 9 is denied and plaintiff's motion for a continuance 9 is granted. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by 7/10/17 signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Marvin Krona, Prisoner ID: 908843)(RS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case No. C17-0404-RAJ-MAT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN ATTORNEY AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A CONTINUANCE
D.O.C., et al.,
This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the
Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motions for an attorney and for a continuance of the deadline
to file his amended complaint. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motions, and the balance of
the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:
Plaintiff’s motion for an attorney (Dkt. 9) is DENIED. There is no right to have
counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may
do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.
1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089
(9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ATTORNEY - 1
light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
While the Court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint is deficient and must therefore
be amended if he wishes to proceed with this action, plaintiff gives no indication that he lacks the
ability to articulate his claims pro se. As for plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his
claims, the record is not yet sufficiently developed for this Court to make such a determination.
Based on the information available to the Court at this juncture, this Court must conclude that
plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the
appointment of counsel.
Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of the deadline to file his amended complaint
(Dkt. 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff indicates that he requires additional time to file his amended
complaint because the prison law librarian is only available once each week to make copies or to
do electronic filing. Plaintiff does not indicate in his motion how much additional time he requires
to file his amended pleading, but it appears that under the circumstances noted by plaintiff an
additional thirty days should be sufficient. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted a continuance until
July 10, 2017 to file his amended complaint. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this
deadline, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
Richard A. Jones.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable
DATED this 8th day of June, 2017.
Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ATTORNEY - 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?