Baylis v. Valve Corporation

Filing 9

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

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

7
8
9
10

TREVOR KEVIN BAYLIS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. C23-1653RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
VALVE CORPORATION,

14
Defendant.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Trevor Baylis’s “Application for Court-

17
18
19

Appointed Counsel,” Dkt. #8. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Defendant Valve, a distributor of
video games, has not yet appeared.

20

Mr. Baylis alleges that he is an author of the film “Iron Sky,” and that Valve has

21

engaged in the unauthorized distribution of his copyrighted works, specifically “3D modeled

22
23
24

space craft that appear prominently and feature as the main game-play of the games being
distributed” and “[f]ilm footage from Iron Sky.” Dkt. #5 at 5. He alleges that he has sent a

25

“DMCA request” to Valve. Id. In the instant Motion, he sets forth no facts about his personal

26

financial circumstances or his attempts to obtain counsel. See Dkt. #8.

27
28

ORDER - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5
6
7

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952,

8

954 (9th Cir. 1983). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for

9

indigent civil litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

10
11
12

Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff has presented a coherent claim with citation to applicable law. He appears to

13

have a good understanding of the laws and facts that would be necessary to support his claims.

14

The Complaint appears to demonstrate a capacity to proceed in this case pro se. The Court

15

cannot conclude at this time whether Plaintiff’s claims have a strong likelihood of success on

16

the merits given the limited factual record. Plaintiff has otherwise failed to set forth exceptional

17
18
19
20
21

circumstances. Given all of the above, the Court will deny the requested relief.
Having considered the briefing from Plaintiff and the remainder of the record, the Court
hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. #8, is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2023.

22

A

23
24

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 3