Alicea v. SCORE Jail et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Judge Karen L Strombom.(MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
NATHAN R. ALICEA,
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C16-5153 RBL-KLS

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL

SCORE JAIL, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13
Plaintiff Nathan R. Alicea moves for the appointment of counsel. Dkt. 8. Having
14
carefully reviewed the motion and balance of the record, the Court finds that the motion should
15
be denied.
16
DISCUSSION
17
No constitutional right exists to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. Storseth v.
18
Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). See also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.
19
Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is
20
discretionary, not mandatory.”) However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may
21
appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28
22
U.S.C.§ 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis supplied.) To decide whether exceptional
2 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and]
3 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
4 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting
5 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts that show he
6 has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue involved and an inadequate ability to
7 articulate the factual basis of his claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d
8 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
9

Mr. Alicea requests the appointment of counsel because he is indigent. Dkt. 8. This case

10 does not involve complex facts or law and Mr. Alicea has shown an ability to articulate his
11 claims in a clear fashion understandable to the Court. In addition, Mr. Alicea does not show that
12 he is likely to succeed on the merits of his case.
13

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

14

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for counsel (Dkt. 8) is DENIED.

15

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

16

Dated this 31st day of May, 2016.

17

A

18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2