Hauck v. Walker et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (cc: mailed to Pltf) (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 CHRISTINE D. HAUCK,
9

Plaintiff,

10

CASE NO. C13-5729 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

v.

11 PHILLIP D. WALKER, et al.,
12

Defendants.

13
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt.

14
15 4).
16

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

17 1983. Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), can request counsel to represent a
18 party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional
19 circumstances. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). A finding of
20 exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the
21 merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate her claims pro se in light of the
22

ORDER - 1

1 complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331
2 (9th Cir. 1986).
3

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to show that exceptional circumstances exist. The

4 issues appear to be straight forward unlawful search and excessive force claims and,
5 based on her complaint, Plaintiff should be able to articulate her claims. If the
6 circumstances change or the Court finds that Plaintiff requires the assistance of counsel,
7 the Court may reconsider this decision. At this time, however, the Court finds that
8 Plaintiff does not require the assistance of counsel. Therefore, the Court DENIES
9 Plaintiff’s motion.
10

Dated this 13th day of November, 2013.

11

A

12
13

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2