Winn v. Grand Jury Special Prosecutor
Filing
3
ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff has fifteen (15) days to pay the filing fee or this matter will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 7/22/2013 (DN). (cc to pltf)
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
10
11
12
15
Order Denying IFP Status and Motion to
Appoint Counsel
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 13-cv-5551-RBL
DANIEL WINN,
v.
GRAND JURY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
[Dkts. #1, 2]
Defendant.
16
17
I.
18
19
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel Winn’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
20
[Dkt. #1] and application for appointment of counsel [Dkt. #2]. For the reasons set forth below,
21
the Court denies the applications.
22
23
24
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon
25
completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court has broad
26
discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil
27
actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th
28
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed
Order - 1
1
in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the
2
action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369
3
(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis
4
complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v.
5
Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.
6
1984).
7
Here, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s application because the Complaint, barely legible,
8
appears frivolous on its face. The nature of the claim is entirely unclear, and it appears likely
9
that any attempt to sue Plaintiff’s prosecutor in his personal capacity would be barred by
10
11
12
prosecutorial immunity.
B. Application for Appointment of Counsel.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent any
13
person unable to afford counsel. Under § 1915, the Court may appoint counsel in exceptional
14
circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional
15
circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of
16
the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
17
involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
18
19
As noted above, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits at this time. Thus, the
Court must decline to appoint counsel.
III.
20
21
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the application to proceed in forma
22
pauperis [Dkt. #1] and the application to appoint counsel [Dkt. #2]. Plaintiff has 15 days to pay
23
the filing fees or the case may be dismissed.
24
25
26
27
Dated this 22nd day of July 2013.
A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
Order - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?