Owens v. John Doe et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 6 and 8 Motions to Appoint Counsel without prejudice. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Mychal Owens, Prisoner ID: 878377) (TH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 MYCHAL OWENS, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 CASE NO. C17-1027 JCC-BAT ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL v. JOHN DOE, et. al., Defendant. 13 Mychal Owens, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 14 two motions to appoint counsel. Dkt. 6; Dkt. 13. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES 15 the motions without prejudice. 16 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 17 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 19 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 20 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 21 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 22 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). At this early point, the 23 complaint presents insufficient evidence indicating that there is a likelihood of success on the ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1 1 merits. Mr. Owens therefore has not presented exceptional circumstances that would justify the 2 appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Owens’ motions to 3 appoint counsel without prejudice. Dkt. 6; Dkt. 13. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to 4 Mr. Owens. 5 DATED this 8th day of September, 2017. 6 A 7 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING 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?