Jimma v. City of Seattle Police Department

Filing 13

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

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

7
8
9

ALMAYEHU JIMMA,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

CASE NO. C18-0771-RSL

v.
CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiff Almayehu Jimma, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) in this civil

16

matter, submitted a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 11.) The motion was referred to

17

the undersigned for a determination. (Dkt. 12.) Having now considered the motion, the Court

18

finds and ORDERS as follows:

19

(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he Court may request an attorney to

20

represent any person unable to afford counsel.” However, there is no right to appointment of

21

counsel in a civil case. See United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir.

22

1986). Moreover, the Court may appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v.

23

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances

ORDER RE: COUNSEL
PAGE - 1

1

requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the

2

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

3

Id. These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel

4

under § 1915(e)(1). Id.

5

Plaintiff provides little to no information in support of his motion for the appointment of

6

counsel.

7

insufficient information to allow for a determination that exceptional circumstances warrant the

8

appointment of counsel. As it stands, plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on

9

the merits. Nor is it clear plaintiff is unable to articulate his claims pro se. Accordingly,

10

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 11) is herein DENIED without prejudice to

11

renewal of the motion at a later date.

12

(2)

13

Having considered the motion, as well as plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds

S. Lasnik.

14

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable Robert

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2018.

15

A

16

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER RE: COUNSEL
PAGE - 2