Steed v. Scott et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motions 7 and 15 for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura. (GMR- cc:p pltf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

MICHAEL WAYNE STEED,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

v.

13

MARY SCOTT et al.,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

CASE NO. C12-6058 RBL-JRC

Defendants.
The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge. The District Court’s authority for the referral is found in 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judges Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.
On January 8, 2013 plaintiff filed a motion asking that the Court appoint counsel to
represent him (ECF No. 7). Without waiting for a ruling on that motion, plaintiff has filed a
second motion asking for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15). Both motions are DENIED.
There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Although the Court can request counsel to represent a party, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court
may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1 Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d
2 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate both
3 the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
4 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
5

Plaintiff has articulated a claim for a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to medical

6 treatment (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff has also stated a claim regarding retaliation (ECF No. 5).
7 Plaintiff has been able to file motions and he is prosecuting his action (ECF No. 10). The Court
8 is not in a position to evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants have not
9 answered the complaint nor filed any dispositive motion, although notices of waiver of service
10 were received on January 22, 2013 (ECF No. 12, 13, and 14). An attorney has appeared on the
11 defendants’ behalf (ECF No. 9).
12

The Court denies plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel because plaintiff appears

13 able to prosecute his action. He is able to articulate his claims, which are not complex. The fact
14 that plaintiff is incarcerated and faces a burden in proceeding with the action does not entitle him
15 to an attorney.
16

Dated this 6th day of February, 2013.

17
18
19

A
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2