Adams v. Department of Social and Health Services et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, denying 16 . Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DENIS LESTER ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THURSTON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, OLYMPIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, OLYMPIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, OLYMPIA KIWANIS CLUB, Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Request for Court Appointed Legal Assistance (Dkt. 16). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the remainder of the file herein. On November 24, 2008, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a Complaint, alleging that the defendants negligently and improperly investigated child and sex abuse allegations. (Dkt. 3). The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. On December 29, 2008, Defendants Department of Social and Health Services and Washington State Attorney General, filed a Motion for More Definite Statement. (Dkt. 10). On January 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed this current motion asking for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 16). On January 23, 2009, this Court granted Defendant's Motion ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Case No. 08-5685RJB

1 for More Definite Statement. (Dkt. 14). On February 05, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended 2 complaint that is substantially similar to the his original complaint. Dkt. 20. 3 The Court may appoint counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(d) only under "exceptional

4 circumstances." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (1990). "A finding of exceptional 5 circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability 6 of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 7 involved. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching 8 a decision." Id. (internal citations omitted). 9 Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel should be denied. At this stage in the

10 litigation, there has not been a sufficient development of the facts to establish whether Plaintiff 11 will likely succeed on the merits. However, based on Plaintiff's pleadings, he appears to be 12 having difficulty adequately articulating his claims in light of the legal issues involved. 13 Nevertheless, when the two factors are viewed together, the Plaintiff's situation does not rise to 14 the "exceptional circumstances" standard. 15 Therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of

16 Counsel (Dkt. 16) is DENIED. 17 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

18 to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER - 2

DATED this 17th day of February, 2009.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge