Clavette v. Skamania County Sheriff et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion for Reconsideration, granting in forma pauperis, denying appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 3/1/2013 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

10
11
12

15

Order

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 12-cv-6027 RBL

CLAUDIA R.D. CLAVETTE,

v.
[Dkt. #6]
SKAMANIA COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

Before the Court is Plaintiff Claudia Clavette’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

20

[Dkt. #1] and application for appointment of counsel [Dkt. #2]. For the reasons set forth below,

21

the Court grants the application to proceed in forma pauperis and denies the application for

22

appointment of counsel.

23
24
25

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

26

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad

27

discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

28

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th

Order - 1

1

Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed

2

in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the

3

action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369

4

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis

5

complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.

6

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.

7

1984).

8

The motion is granted

9

B.

10

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent any

11

person unable to afford counsel. Under § 1915, the Court may appoint counsel in exceptional

12

circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional

13

circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

14

the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

15

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

16

This case does not present exceptional circumstances. The Complaint does not appear

17

likely to succeed on the merits, and in any event, the factual and legal issues are clear. The

18

motion is denied.

19
20
21

III.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. #6). Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis.

22
23
24
25
26

Dated this 1st day of March 2013.

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

Order - 2