Grae-El et al v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 23

ORDER: The court DENIES Plaintiffs' motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. #12 ). The court also DENIES Plaintiffs' amended motion for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. #19 ). Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH) (cc: Plaintiff Strange and Hadfield Defendants via US mail)

Case 2:21-cv-01678-JLR Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ZION GRAE-EL, et al.,

CASE NO. C21-1678JLR

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.
12
13

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,
Defendant.

14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION

16

Before the court is a motion for court-appointed counsel brought by pro se

17

Plaintiffs Zion Grae-El, Caprice Strange, and minor children A.G., A.S., Z.A.G., E.A.D.,

18

and E.M.D. (Mot. (Dkt. # 12).)1 Plaintiffs include with their motion an application to

19

proceed in forma pauperis. (See id. at 6-10.) Defendants the City of Seattle, Ryoma

20
21
22

Plaintiffs also filed an “amended” motion for court-appointed counsel on December 30,
2021. (Am. Mot. (Dkt. # 19).) The filing makes the same request and appears to contain the
same information and arguments as the initial motion. (Compare Mot., with Am. Mot.)
1

ORDER - 1

Case 2:21-cv-01678-JLR Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 4

1

Nichols, and Daina Boggs oppose the appointment of counsel. (Resp. (Dkt. # 18).)2 The

2

court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motions, the relevant law, and the balance of the record.

3

For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES both motions.3

4
5

II.

ANALYSIS

Generally, civil litigants have no right to have counsel appointed, Palmer v.

6

Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009), or to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1915(a). If “exceptional circumstances” warrant, a court may permit an indigent

8

litigant to proceed with a claim in forma pauperis, Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

9

1331 (9th Cir. 1986), or appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), Palmer, 560

10

F.3d at 970. Whether the circumstances are exceptional enough to warrant appointed

11

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

12

ability of the plaintiff to articulate their claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

13

legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither of these considerations is

14

dispositive; instead, they must be viewed together. Id.

15

Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is accompanied by an

16

accounting of their monthly income and expenses, which reveals that their monthly

17

expenses are nearly equal to their approximately $4,600 monthly income. (See id. at

18

6-10.) However, in forma pauperis status is generally granted only where there is reason

19

to think that the payment of court costs will imperil the plaintiff’s ability to pay for the

20
2

21
22

The remaining named Defendants did not submit a response. (See generally Dkt.)
Plaintiffs request oral argument in their amended motion. (See Mot. at 1.) Because the
court finds that oral argument would not aid its disposition of this motion, it declines to schedule
argument. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).
3

ORDER - 2

Case 2:21-cv-01678-JLR Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 4

1

“necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). As

2

this matter was removed to federal court by Defendants, no filing fee is implicated. Even

3

if a fee were due, however, the court would deny Plaintiffs’ motion because it does not

4

appear from their affidavit that they lack sufficient income to pay any fees or costs

5

associated with their case. Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application to

6

proceed in forma pauperis.

7

Plaintiffs are also unable to establish that “exceptional circumstances” warrant the

8

appointment of counsel. In particular, their motion fails to show that, in light of the

9

complexity of the legal issues involved, they are unable to articulate their claims pro se.

10

Indeed, their filings to date demonstrate the opposite—that they are quite capable of

11

articulating their claims and bringing coherent motions before the court. (See generally

12

Dkt.) Plaintiffs even represent that, should this case advance to trial, they “do not

13

anticipate needing any legal representation” at that point. (See Mot. at 4.) Finally,

14

Plaintiffs point to several factors, including expert testimony they believe will support

15

their case, as a reason to conclude they are likely to succeed on the merits. (See id.)

16

Plaintiffs’ anticipated use of expert testimony provides further reason to think they are

17

able to prosecute their case without court appointed counsel. At this early phase of the

18

case, however, the court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the

19

merits of their case.

20

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that this case involves the type of

21

exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel by the court. For the

22

same reason, the court determines that Plaintiffs’ request for court-appointed counsel

ORDER - 3

Case 2:21-cv-01678-JLR Document 23 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 4

1

should not be passed on to the pro bono screening committee for further review. See

2

General Order No. 16-20, Section 3(c) (Dec. 8, 2020) (In re Amended Plan for the

3

Representation of Pro Se Litigants in Civil Rights Actions).

4
5

III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma

6

pauperis and for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. # 12). For the same reasons, the court

7

also DENIES Plaintiffs’ amended motion for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. # 19).

8

Unless Plaintiffs retain counsel, they will be responsible for pursuing this case pro se.

9

Materials to assist pro se litigants are available on the United States District Court for the

10

Western District of Washington’s website. Although the court affords some leeway to

11

pro se litigants, Plaintiffs must comply with case deadlines, the Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure, and the Western District of Washington’s Local Rules, which can also be

13

found on the Western District of Washington’s website.

14

Dated this 10th day of January, 2022.

16

A

17

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

15

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4