Humphries v. Ward et al

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (cc: plaintiff)(ST)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

RICHARD G. HUMPHRIES,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. C17-1397-RAJ-MAT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

v.
JACOB M. WARD, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the

15

Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. The Court, having

16

reviewed plaintiff’s motion, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:

17

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 4-10) is DENIED. There is no

18

right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court,

19

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma

20

pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789

21

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe

22

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an

23

evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1

his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

2

While the Court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint is deficient and must therefore

3

be amended if he wishes to proceed with this action, plaintiff gives no indication that he lacks the

4

ability to articulate his claims pro se. As for plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his

5

claims, it appears unlikely that the Court will even reach the merits of plaintiff’s claims given that

6

the action appears to have been filed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

7

Based on the information available to the Court at this time, this Court must conclude that plaintiff

8

has not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the

9

appointment of counsel.

10

(2)

11

Richard A. Jones.

12

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable

DATED this 17th day of October, 2017.

13

A

14

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2