Shankar v. Microsoft Corporation et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8 ) is DENIED. The motion to seal (Dkt. No. 11 ) is GRANTED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Numbers 1 , 5 , 9 , and 10 under seal. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (KRA)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

RAGHAVENDRAN SHANKAR,

10

Plaintiff,

11

CASE NO. C24-0308-JCC
ORDER

v.

12

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and motion

16

to seal (Dkt. Nos. 8, 11). Having duly considered the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES

17

the motion to appoint counsel and GRANTS the motion to seal for the reasons described below.
The appointment of counsel for a pro se litigant in a civil case “is a privilege and not a

18
19

right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965). A court may

20

appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) 1 but should do so

21

“only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984).

22

When determining whether exceptional circumstances justify the appointment of counsel, the

23

1

24
25
26

Although courts often refer to motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) as motions to appoint
counsel, the statute does not actually authorize the Court to force a lawyer to take a case. Nor
does the Court have staff attorneys standing by to represent pro se litigants. Instead, the Court
may only “request” that an attorney represent an indigent litigant. Id. § 1915(e); see also Mallard
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989) (holding that § 1915(e) authorizes
“courts to ask but not compel lawyers to represent indigent litigants”).
ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to

2

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v.

3

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954

4

(9th Cir. 1983)). Moreover, it is within the Court’s discretion “to deny the motion when [a party

5

is] unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940

6

(9th Cir. 1981) (citing Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)).

7

Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence verifying his indigence. Indeed, the

8

Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge, previously recommended denying

9

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis for this very reason. (See Dkt. No. 3.) And in

10

doing so, she noted that “[i]n the past twelve months, Plaintiff indicates he has received

11

$100,000 in business or professional income, $5,000 in public assistance, [] $70,000 in income

12

from other sources,” and “between $50,000 and $70,000 in savings.” (Id. at 1.) Accordingly,

13

because Plaintiff appears to have the financial resources to retain counsel, his motion to appoint

14

counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED.

15

Separately, Plaintiff moves to seal several documents, including three complaints and his

16

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 1, 5, 9, 10). While the public has a common law

17

right to inspect and copy public records, including those from judicial proceedings, these rights

18

are not absolute. They must yield when (1) sealing a document serves a compelling interest, (2)

19

that is substantially likely to be harmed if the document is not sealed, and (3) there are no less

20

restrictive alternatives for protecting the interest. See United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 998

21

(9th Cir. 2017). Given the nature of the information contained in the materials at issue, these

22

criteria are met here.

23

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. The motion

24

to seal (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Numbers 1,

25

5, 9, and 10 under seal.

26

//
ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

DATED this 3rd day of April 2024.

A

2
3
4

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C24-0308-JCC
PAGE - 3