Borreggine v. ProKarma Inc et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from refiling this Motion once a factual record pertaining to his claims has been more fully developed. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

PETER BORREGGINE,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
PROKARMA, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

)
) CASE NO. C18-0336 RSM
)
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) APPOINT COUNSEL
)
)
)
)

14
15

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt.

16

#6. Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel in this employment-related case on the basis that

17

he has contacted numerous attorneys and they have declined to take his case. Id. Plaintiff has

18

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #4. The Complaint was

19
20

filed on March 21, 2018, and summonses have recently been issued.

21

In civil cases, the appointment of counsel to a pro se litigant “is a privilege and not a

22

right.” United States ex. Rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (citation

23

omitted). “Appointment of counsel should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing

24

Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963)). A court must consider together “both the

25
26

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se

27

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954

28

(9th Cir. 1983). Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1
2

litigant’s chances of success are extremely slim. See Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 256 (6th
Cir. 1985).

3

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered discriminatory employment termination on the basis of

4

his age, race and national origin. Dkt. #5. At this early stage of the litigation, the Court cannot

5

find that Plaintiff is entitled to appointment of counsel. It does not yet appear that any exceptional
6
7

circumstances exist, and there is no record before the Court that would allow the Court to

8

examine whether Plaintiff’s claims appear to have merit. Moreover, the Court also notes that

9

prior to filing his suit, Plaintiff made a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity

10

Commission (“EEOC”).

The EEOC made no determination with respect to the alleged

11

discrimination; rather, it dismissed Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that he had signed a severance
12
13

agreement with a release and waiver. Dkt. #5. Ex. 7. Thus, it may be that this Court will not

14

have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. In addition, Title VII does not provide an automatic

15

right to counsel for employment discrimination claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). .

16

Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint

17
18
19
20

Counsel (Dkt. #6) is DENIED without prejudice. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from refiling this Motion once a factual record pertaining to his claims has been more fully developed.
DATED this 13th day of April 2018.

21

A

22

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2