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