Humphries v. Ward et al

Filing 8


Download PDF
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

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?