Cruze v. Warner et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause signed by Judge J Richard Creatura. The Court orders plaintiff to show cause and inform the Court what steps he has taken to obtain the information he alleges the Department of Corrections has withheld from him. Plaintiffs response to this order will be due on or before August 16, 2013.(MET) cc: plaintiff

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

8
9
10

SCHAWN JAMES CRUZE,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
BERNIE WARNER, et al.,
Defendants.

14

CASE NO. C13-5220 BHS-JRC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE

15
16

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States

17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court’s authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. §
18 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.
19

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him (ECF No. 30). The motion is

20 denied without prejudice because plaintiff fails to show the Court that his circumstances warrant
21 appointment of counsel.
22

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23 Although the Court can request counsel to represent a party, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court
24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
-1

1 may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th
2 Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d
3 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate both
4 the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in
5 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
6

Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually abused by certain Department of Corrections

7 employees (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff alleges that he cannot get information from investigation
8 reports that the Department of Corrections conducted regarding his allegations of employee
9 misconduct (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff does not inform the Court what steps he has taken in his
10 attempts to obtain these reports or what response he has received from the department. Plaintiff
11 may have a viable claim, but he has not shown that the legal issues are so complex that they
12 warrant appointment of counsel at this time.
13

Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

14

Further, the Court orders plaintiff to show cause and inform the Court what steps he has

15 taken to obtain the information he alleges the Department of Corrections has withheld from him.
16 Plaintiff’s response to this order will be due on or before August 16, 2013.
17

Dated this 11th day of July, 2013.

18
19
20

A
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
-2