Mayes v. Amazon et al

Filing 13

ORDER REFERRING TO PRO BONO PANEL Plaintiff's 10 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's 11 MOTION for Court to Serve Summons is STAYED, pending the result of the referral of his case to the Pro Bono Screening Panel. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: Sharon Haas; plaintiff via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MARK MAYES,

CASE NO. C18-176 MJP
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER ON MOTIONS

AMAZON, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

The Court, having received and reviewed:

17

1. Plaintiff’s Application for Court-Appointed Counsel (Dkt. No. 10),

18

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Serve Summons (Dkt. No. 11),

19
20

and relevant portions of the record, rules as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Court-Appointed Counsel is GRANTED

21

and his matter is referred to the Pro Bono Screening Panel to ascertain if there are available

22

counsel.

23
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS - 1

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Serve Summons is
STAYED, pending the results of the referral of his case to the Pro Bono Screening Panel.

3
4

Discussion
Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141

5

F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). A court has discretion to appoint counsel for indigent civil

6

litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but an appointment of counsel should only be

7

granted under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d

8

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the

9

Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to

10

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v.

11

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

12

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), “[u]pon application by the complainant and in

13

such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such

14

complainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees,

15

costs, or security.” In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a Title VII case, the court assesses

16

the applicant’s financial resources, efforts the applicant has already made to secure counsel, and

17

whether the claim has merit. Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th

18

Cir. 1981).

19

The Court makes no finding regarding the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits

20

beyond observing that he has stated a colorable claim. Having qualified for in forma pauperis

21

status (see Dkt. No. 3), it is apparent that Plaintiff does not have the resources to procure counsel

22

on his own, although Plaintiffs application does list several legal agencies he contacted in an

23
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS - 2

1

attempt to retain an attorney. (Dkt. No. 10 at 2.) The Court is satisfied that it is just under the

2

circumstances to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this case. Wherefore,

3
4
5
6

IT IS ORDERED that this matter is referred to the Pro Bono Screening Panel to ascertain
if there is an attorney available and willing to take up representation of Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Serve Summons is
STAYED until such time as counsel is appointed to represent him.

7
8

The Clerk is direct to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Pro Bono Panel.

9
10

Dated: April 3, 2018.

A

11
12

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Court Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTIONS - 3