Faryabi v. Bellevue Crossroad Mall

Filing 7

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Dismissing Without Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. # 5 ). Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

FARSHAD FARYABI,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

Defendants.

14

16
17
18

I.

21
22

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
(Dkt. # 3), this Court’s Order’s dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend.
Dkt. # 6. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint
counsel, and DISMISSES without leave to amend his Complaint.

19
20

ORDER

BELLEVUE CROSSROAD MALL,

13

15

Case No. C18-956-RAJ

II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action complaining that security personnel working for
Defendant Bellevue Crossroad Mall told him to leave the mall. Dkt. ## 1, 5. The
Honorable Mary Alice Theiler granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

23

pauperis. Dkt. # 4. On July 28, 2018, Plaintiff moved this Court to appoint counsel.

24

Dkt. # 3.

25

On July 5, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dkt. # 6. The Court

26

did so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the Court to dismiss the

27

complaint of an in forma pauperis plaintiff if that complaint fails to state a claim. Id. In

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court instructed that Plaintiff must file an amended
complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Order, or the case would be
dismissed with prejudice. Id. Over a month has passed since the Court’s July 5, 2018
Order, and Plaintiff has not made any filing.
III. DISCUSSION

5
6

A.

The Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel

This is a civil action where, as a general matter, a plaintiff does not have a right to
7
counsel. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). In certain cases,
8
“exceptional circumstances” may warrant the appointment of counsel. Agyeman v.
9
Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). “A finding of exceptional
10
circumstances requires an evaluation of both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits and
11
the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
12
legal issues involved.’” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)
13
(quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
14
The Court finds that no exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

counsel because Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. As explained in the
Court’s previous Order (Dkt. # 6), Plaintiff’s Complaint is essentially two one-page
letters that do not state a legal claim or provide a basis for relief. Dkt. ## 5, 5-1. The
only factual allegation this Court can discern is that security personnel at Bellevue
Crossroads Mall asked Plaintiff to leave. Dkt. # 5. This alone does not give rise to an
actionable legal claim. The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to supplement its
factual allegations, and Plaintiff has failed to do so. Dkt. # 6. Because no exceptional
circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is
DENIED. Dkt. # 3.
B.

The Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint With Prejudice

The Court’s authority to grant in forma pauperis status derives from 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. The Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis plaintiff’s case if the Court
determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on
ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if it
lacks a basis in law or fact. Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A
complaint fails to state a claim if it does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007).
As noted, the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to
amend within fourteen days because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Dkt. # 6. In doing so, the Court stated, “[i]f Plaintiff does not
file an amended complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an amended
complaint that does not provide a basis for jurisdiction and state a cognizable claim for
relief, or is otherwise untenable under § 1915(e), the Court will dismiss the action.” Id.
Plaintiff has not complied and has not filed an amended pleading as of the date of
this Order, which is over a month after its previous Order directing Plaintiff to do so.
Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff’s Complaint still fails to set forth any actionable legal claim and the
Court cannot see how it would be saved with further amendment. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66
F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal without leave to amend is proper where “it is
absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect”).
IV. CONCLUSION

19
20
21
22
23

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint
Counsel (Dkt. # 3), and DISMISSES WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Dkt. # 5).
Dated this 7th day of August, 2018.

24

26

A

27

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25

28

ORDER – 3