Price v. Morgan et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 18 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7
8

CLAUDE ALLEN PRICE, JR.,
No. C13-5028 RJB/KLS

Plaintiff,
v.

9
10
11

SHARON MORGAN, CLIFFORD
JOHNSON, FRANK LONGANO, FRED
NAVARRO, E. LARSEN,
Defendants.

12
13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 18.

14

Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and balance of the record, the Court finds, for the

15

reasons stated below, that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

16

DISCUSSION

17
18

No constitutional right exists to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. Storseth v.

19

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). See also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.

20

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is

21

discretionary, not mandatory.”) However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may

22

appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28

23

U.S.C.§ 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other

24
grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis supplied.) To decide whether exceptional
25
26

circumstances exist, the court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and]

ORDER - 1

1

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

2

issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting

3

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts that show he

4

has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue involved and an inadequate ability to

5
articulate the factual basis of his claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d
6
7
8

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
That a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel is not the test.

9

Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Moreover, the need for discovery does not necessarily qualify the issues

10

involved as “complex.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Most actions require development of further

11

facts during litigation. But, if all that was required to establish the complexity of the relevant

12

issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, then practically all cases

13
would involve complex legal issues. Id.
14
15

Plaintiff states that he requires the appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford

16

counsel, the issues of his case are complex, he has limited access to the library and limited

17

knowledge of the law, and he has been unable to find counsel to represent him. ECF No. 18 at 1.

18
19
20

The Court finds no exceptional circumstances in this case. Plaintiff filed his complaint
pro se and has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. This case is not
legally or factually complex. While Plaintiff may not have vast resources or legal training, he

21
22

meets the threshold for a pro se litigant. Concerns regarding investigation and discovery are

23

also not exceptional factors, but are the type of difficulties encountered by many pro se litigants.

24

There are also numerous avenues of discovery available to the parties through the Federal Rules

25

of Civil Procedure during the litigation process. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood

26

of success on the merits.
ORDER - 2

1
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 18) is
DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff.

3
4

DATED this 8th day of May, 2013.

5

A

6

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3