Eckard v. Stringham et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7 GABRIEL ECKARD,
8
9

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00898-RAJ
SECOND ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

v.

10 JEFF STRINGHAM, et al.,
11

Defendants.

12
Plaintiff Gabriel Eckard, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a former
13
Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) inmate who has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
14
rights action against several DOC officials and employees. Dkt. 7. Plaintiff has filed a second
15
motion for appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 34. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES his
16
motion.
17
There is no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931
18
(9th Cir. 1998). Counsel is appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), only under “exceptional
19
circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
20
Plaintiff requests appointment for counsel claiming he cannot afford to hire counsel, his
21
detention greatly limits his ability to litigate, the issues involved are complex and will require
22
significant research and investigation, he has limited access to the law library and limited
23

SECOND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1

1 knowledge of the law, he has mental health issues and needs more time to respond to motions
2 filed by defendant. Plaintiff fails to show there are “exceptional circumstances” to appoint
3 counsel. His complaint, the instant motion, and other motions he has filed demonstrate his ability
4 to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Plaintiff’s
5 claimed limitations has not impaired his ability to articulate his claims thus far and his
6 complaints regarding limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law are not
7 exceptional circumstances as he fails to show how this places him in a position any different
8 from other pro se prisoner plaintiffs. The Court also notes that since filing this complaint
9 plaintiff has filed eight other complaints in this court. His pro se status is not a barrier.
10

This is not a complex case. It involves whether defendants failed to properly respond to

11 plaintiff’s request for outside yard and cleaning supplies. Dkt. 7. The Court accordingly
12 DENIES the motion (Dkt. 34). The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to plaintiff and
13 counsel for defendants.
14

DATED this 14th day of March, 2019.

15
16

A

17

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23

SECOND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 2