Dalessio v. University of Washington

Filing 14

ORDER denying plaintiff's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

JULIE DALESSIO,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
12

Defendant.

13

)
) CASE NO. C17-0642RSM
)
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) APPOINT COUNSEL
)
)
)
)

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt. #8.

16

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel in this case on the bases that: 1) she received

17

referrals to attorneys who were “not competent” for this type of case; 2) attempts to engage an

18

attorney by phone or internet contact were not successful; and 3) over the past six months she
19
20

has contacted more than 30 attorneys and none of them have accepted her case. Id. Plaintiff

21

has not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Id. The Complaint was

22

removed to this Court on April 24, 2017, and Defendant has appeared through its counsel. See

23

Dkt. #1. Although it is not typical for defendants to respond to these types of applications for

24

appointment of counsel, Defendant has opposed the motion, and argues that the Court should
25
26

deny the request because Plaintiff’s claims are likely to be denied on the merits. Dkt. #11.

27

In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a

28

right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing

2

Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the

3

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro

4

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,

5

954 (9th Cir. 1983). Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where
6
7
8
9
10

the litigant’s chances of success are extremely slim. See Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256
(6th Cir. 1985).
At this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff is entitled to
appointment of counsel. It does not yet appear that any exceptional circumstances exist, and

11

there is no record before the Court that would allow the Court to examine whether Plaintiff's
12
13

claims appear to have merit. In addition, Title VII does not provide an automatic right to

14

counsel for employment discrimination claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

15

Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint

16

Counsel (Dkt. #8) is DENIED without prejudice. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from
17
18
19
20

re-filing her Motion once a factual record pertaining to her claims has been more fully
developed.
DATED this 31 day of May, 2017.

21

A

22
23

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2