Smith v. Phillips et al
Filing
6
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR COURT-APPOINTED 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
ROBERT H. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
9
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR COURTAPPOINTED COUNSEL
v.
10
Case No. C17-1457-TSZ-MAT
RYAN W. PHILLIPS, 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 application for court-appointed counsel. The Court, having
16
reviewed plaintiff’s application, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as
17
follows:
18
(1)
Plaintiff’s application for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. 1-2) is DENIED. There is
19
no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court,
20
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma
21
pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789
22
F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe
23
v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
FOR COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL - 1
1
evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate
2
his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
3
While the Court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint is deficient and must therefore
4
be amended if he wishes to proceed with this action, plaintiff gives no indication that he lacks the
5
ability to articulate his claims pro se. As for plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his
6
claims, the record is not yet sufficiently developed for this Court to make such a determination.
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
Thomas S. Zilly.
12
13
14
15
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable
DATED this 6th day of October, 2017.
A
Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
FOR COURT-APPOINTED 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?