Gilbert v. Clark County Sheriff et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 5 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 9/23/2015 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

MICHELLE GILBERT,

CASE NO. C15-5550 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY

v.
11

[Dkt. #5]
CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Michelle Gilbert’s motion for

15 court-appointed counsel.
16

In exceptional circumstances, the court may ask an attorney to represent any person

17 unable to afford counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
18 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood
19 of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of
20 the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.
21 1983).
22

While the Court previously granted Gilbert’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, it

23 cannot be said that she has shown any likelihood of success on the merits of her claim.
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURTAPPOINTED ATTORNEY - 1

1 Gilbert’s suit broadly and cryptically claims that officers unconstitutionally restrained her son.
2 But she has not identified the “who what when where why” of a likely-to-succeed claim against
3 any of the named defendants. Her Motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2015.

A

7
8

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #5] - 2