Franklin v. De Castilla et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying plaintiff's 12 Second Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Travis Franklin, Prisoner ID: 326228)(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 TRAVIS SKYLER OWEN FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. C17-594-JLR-BAT ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL v. DIEGO LOPEZ DE CASTILLA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Travis Franklin, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 14 rights action, has filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 12. This is plaintiff’s second motion 15 for counsel. His first motion, Dkt. 4, was denied. For similar reasons, the Court DENIES this 16 second motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 18 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 20 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 21 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 22 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 23 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1 1 Plaintiff’s second motion contends exceptional circumstances exist because he has mental 2 and physical disabilities and little education, “which prevents him from understanding the legal 3 documents he receives from the defendants and the Court.” Dkt. 12 at 3. The Court understands 4 this second motion was filed with the assistance of a fellow inmate. Id. at 1. But even assuming 5 without deciding that plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity 6 of the legal issues involved, plaintiff has still failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. 7 Plaintiff’s amended complaint contends the defendant failed to timely schedule a kidney biopsy 8 or send plaintiff to a nephrologist, thereby “either purposefully ignor[ing] or fail[ing] to respond 9 to [his] pain and medical needs” and resulting in long-term medical complications. Dkt. 6 at 3. 10 Though the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel discuss to some 11 extent treatments given or not given to address plaintiff’s kidney disorder, they are insufficient to 12 establish plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of his claim. See Dkt. 12. Appointment of 13 counsel is therefore not justified at this time, and the Court DENIES the motion, Dkt. 12, 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may renew his motion in the future if exceptional 15 circumstances arise. Any renewed motion must establish plaintiff meets both prongs of the 16 “exceptional circumstances” test. See Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954. 17 The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 18 DATED this 6th day of July, 2017. 19 A 20 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT 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?