Baker v. Grant et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel (Dkts. [28 & 36 ) without prejudice. Signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Jamall Baker, Prisoner ID: 338926) (TH)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
JAMALL BAKER,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
Case No. C17-1678-RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
v.
JERALD GRANT, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff, an inmate in the Special
15
Offender Unit at the Monroe Correctional Complex, has filed two motions to appoint counsel
16
(Dkts. 28 & 36), which the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik has referred to the undersigned. (Dkts. 35
17
& 38.) Defendants oppose plaintiff’s requests. (Dkt. 29.) Having considered the parties’
18
submissions, the balance of the record, and the governing law, the Court finds and ORDERS:
19
(1)
Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt,
20
141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). In certain “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request
21
the voluntary assistance of counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
22
Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining
23
whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
APPOINT COUNSEL - 1
1
merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
2
of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither factor
3
is dispositive, and they must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for
4
counsel. Id.
(2)
5
Plaintiff argues that his imprisonment will limit his ability to litigate this case
6
because he has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law, the law librarian
7
has refused to print case law for him, and there are witnesses who are no longer present at the
8
prison. (Dkt. 28 at 1-2; Dkt. 36 at1, 3.) Plaintiff also asserts that the issues involved in this case
9
are complex, and that he suffers from bipolar, schizophrenia, and a possible brain injury. (Dkt. 28
10
11
at 1-2.)
(3)
Considering both the likelihood of success on the merits and plaintiff’s ability to
12
articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the relevant legal issues, the Court
13
concludes that plaintiff does not establish exceptional circumstances at this time. It is too early in
14
the case for the Court to determine that plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits. Indeed,
15
it has not yet been determined which of his claims will be permitted to proceed beyond the motion
16
to dismiss stage.
17
recommending that plaintiff be allowed to proceed with his First Amendment retaliation claims
18
against Officers Jerald Grant and Jason Neely and his Eighth Amendment claims against Officer
19
Grant and Sergeant Michael Clayton).)
(See Dkt. 33 (pending Report and Recommendation by the undersigned
20
Plaintiff also has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se, despite
21
his mental illnesses and the limitations caused by imprisonment. He filed an amended complaint
22
that the Court served on defendants. (Dkts. 12 & 13.) He opposed defendants’ motion to dismiss
23
by seeking leave to amend and submitting a proposed second amended complaint. (Dkt. 24.) The
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
APPOINT COUNSEL - 2
1
Court has recommended that he be permitted to proceed with his First Amendment retaliation
2
claims and some of his Eighth Amendment claims. (Dkt. 33.) Plaintiff also filed objections to the
3
Report and Recommendation. Although it may be difficult for plaintiff to develop the factual
4
record and research the relevant legal issues, which are not particularly complex, these challenges
5
are insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances at this time. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
6
965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (where pro se civil rights plaintiff shows a good grasp of basic litigation
7
procedure and has been able to articulate claims adequately, he does not demonstrate exceptional
8
circumstances required for appointment of counsel); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331
9
(9th Cir. 1986) (“Most actions require development of further facts during litigation and a pro se
10
litigant will seldom be in a position to investigate easily the facts necessary to support the case. If
11
all that was required to establish successfully the complexity of the relevant issues was a
12
demonstration of the need for development of further facts, practically all cases would involve
13
complex legal issues [warranting appointment of counsel].”).
14
15
The Court thus DENIES plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (Dkts. 28 & 36) without
prejudice to refiling at a later stage in the case.
16
(4)
17
Robert S. Lasnik.
18
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable
Dated this 29th day of June, 2018.
19
A
20
Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
APPOINT COUNSEL - 3
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?