Coleman v. Merritt et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Counsel. The motion for motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7 , is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.(KRA) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

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

6
7
8

TRAVIS CLINTON COLEMAN ,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01566-JCC-BAT
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL, DKT. 7

v.
C. MERRITT, et al.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff, a King County Jail detainee, filed a complaint alleging (1) Defendants assaulted

14

and injured him on August 10, 2024; (2) he was denied adequate medical care for injuries

15

suffered in the assault; and (3) following the assault, he was placed in restrictive custody without

16

a hearing. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff now moves for appointment of counsel on the grounds he cannot

17

afford to hire a lawyer; incarceration makes it difficult to research and investigate his case; he

18

has mental conditions that impair him; and counsel would be better able to present evidence and

19

cross-examine witnesses at a trial. Dkt. 7.

20

Generally, there is no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d

21

927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28

22

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp.

23

of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL, DKT. 7 - 1

1

circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the

2

ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [her] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal

3

issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

4

The Court finds this is not a case involving exceptional circumstances. Rather, Plaintiff

5

has thus far been able to articulate his claims as a pro se litigant. Although Plaintiff claims his

6

case is complex, Plaintiff presents straightforward allegations that defendants assaulted and

7

injured him, that he was denied medical care for these injuries, and that he was placed into

8

restrictive custody following the assault. Further, the Court at this also cannot say that Plaintiff

9

has a likelihood of succeeding in this matter at this early stage.

10
11
12

The accordingly ORDERS: (1) the motion for motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 7
is DENIED without prejudice; and (2) a copy of this order shall be provided to plaintiff.
DATED this 23rd day of October, 2024.

13

A

14

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL, DKT. 7 - 2