Shackelford v. Mason County Jail

Filing 8

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

IZAK SHACKELFORD,

6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

MASON COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

9
10

No. C13-5326 BHS/KLS

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 6.
Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and balance of the record, the Court finds, for the
reasons stated below, that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

13
DISCUSSION
14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21
22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts that show he
ORDER - 1

1

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

2

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

3

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

4

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

5
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Moreover, the need for discovery does not necessarily qualify the issues
6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

would involve complex legal issues. Id.
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

13
legally or factually complex. While Plaintiff may not have vast resources or legal training, he
14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

of success on the merits.

20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.

21
22
23

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2013.

A

24

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
ORDER - 2