Kent v. Coryell

Filing 13

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge David W. Christel.(MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

DARRELL KENT,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
HOLLEY CORYELL,

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05020-RJB-DWC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

Defendant.

15
16

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate

17 Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Lawyer
18 (“Motion”). Dkt. 11. No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action.
19 Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in
20 U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is
21 discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may
22 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28
23 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
24 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1 Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the
2 [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”
3 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718
4 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp
5 of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of
6 his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
7

Here, Plaintiff has not shown he is indigent. He paid the $400.00 filing fee in this case,

8 and has not submitted any documentation showing he cannot afford an attorney. Additionally,
9 Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the Court find, this case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff
10 has not shown an inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable
11 to the Court. While Plaintiff contends he is likely to succeed on the merits because Defendant
12 admitted to all the facts in the Complaint, it appears Defendant merely responded to
13 interrogatories and has not conceded to any allegations contained in the Complaint. See Dkt. 11,
14 12. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case.
15

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice.

16

Dated this 26th day of May, 2016.

A

17
18

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2