Byrd v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keenan Byrd, Prisoner ID: 406017)(SWT)

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

6
7
8

KEENAN BYRD,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. C18-0215-RSM-MAT

v.
SEATTLE POLICE OFFICER BONESTEEL,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Defendants.

12
13
14

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

15

the 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. 16) 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);

22

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

23

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

1

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

2

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

3

Plaintiff argues in his motion that the interests of justice would be best served by

4

appointment of counsel in this matter because his classification level interferes with his ability to

5

access a law library. Plaintiff claims that because of his MI2 classification he is housed in a

6

minimum security unit which does not have a law library, and that in order to use a law library

7

he must be temporarily transferred to another prison unit. Plaintiff asserts that such transfers

8

involve a time consuming process which could potentially inhibit his ability to meet Court

9

deadlines. He also asserts that the need for such transfers will cause him to lose his prison job

10

and will prevent him from going to school. Finally, plaintiff cites to the difficulty of contacting

11

witnesses and conducting discovery while incarcerated as justification for appointing counsel.

12

Though the process plaintiff describes for accessing the law library is cumbersome, it

13

should not preclude him from effectively litigating this case. The Court can make necessary

14

adjustments to deadlines, within reason, to accommodate plaintiff’s library access concerns. The

15

fact that plaintiff may have to forego prison employment and educational opportunities in order

16

to litigate this case is unfortunate, but is not sufficient to justify appointment of counsel.

17

Likewise, the fact that plaintiff’s incarceration will make contacting witnesses and conducting

18

discovery more difficult, a challenge faced by many prisoners who elect to litigate actions such

19

as this one, is not sufficient to justify appointment of counsel.

20

Based on the information available to the Court at this juncture, this Court must conclude

21

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

22

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied without prejudice to plaintiff

23

renewing his request at a later time should circumstances change.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2

1

(2)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

2

defendants, and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

3

DATED this 20th day of August, 2018.

4

A

5

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 3