Berry v. Thrasher et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4
5

CHEWETO AHMED BERRY,
No. C13-5065 RBL/KLS

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL

TIMOTHY M. THRASHER, MIKE
OBENLAND, ROBERT SMITH, MARK
HUNLEY, KATRINA HENRY, JAN
DOE NURSE, DAN MCBRIDE,

10
Defendants.

11
12

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 6.

13

Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s request and balance of the record, the Court finds that

14

the motion should be denied.

15
16

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

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
circumstances exist, the court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and]
25
26

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

ORDER - 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5

articulate the factual basis of his claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d
1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

6
7

That a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel is not the test.

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

relevant issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, then

12

practically all cases would involve complex legal issues. Id.

13
Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, that the issues involved in this case are
14
15
16
17

complex, he has limited access to legal materials, and that he has no knowledge of the law and
is “functionally illiterate.” ECF No. 6, p. 1.
Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims pro se in a clear fashion

18

understandable to this Court. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court notes that this is not a

19

complex case involving complex facts or law. In addition, Plaintiff presents no evidence to

20

show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. While Plaintiff may not have vast

21
22

resources or legal training, he meets the threshold for a pro se litigant. Concerns regarding

23

investigation, access to legal resources or examination of witnesses are not exceptional factors,

24

but are the type of difficulties encountered by many pro se litigants. Plaintiff has failed in his

25

burden to demonstrate an inability to present his claims to this Court without counsel.

26
ORDER - 2

1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

2

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for counsel (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.

3

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

4
5

DATED this 13th day of February, 2013.

6

A

7
8

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

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