Haskell et al v. DSHS/Children's Administration et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO DENY PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiffs may SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim by 3/17/16. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) Paper copies sent to plaintiffs at Shelton address . Modified on 3/3/2016 (JL).

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

7
8
9
10

BRUCE A. HASKELL and PATRICIA E.
HASKELL,

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05162-RJB
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO
DENY PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
DSHS/Children’s Administration, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte on review of Plaintiffs’ § 1983
16
Complaint (Dkt. 1) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 2). The Court has considered the
17
pleadings and the remainder of the file herein.
18
1. Complaint
19
The Complaint describes proceedings of a child termination case held in the Superior
20
Court Mason County, Washington. Dkt. 1, at 1-13. Plaintiffs conclude their Complaint by
21
requesting the following relief:
22
23

“ are asking this Court to overturn the Order made on October 20, 2011 by the Superior
We
Court of Washington, County of Mason, terminating the parental rights to our daughters,
(S) and (A). And that the Social Workers in our lawsuit were biased against us,

24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO DENY
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL1

1
2

maliciously prosecuted us, and interfered with our Constitutional Right to love, care,
provide and have custody of our adopted twin daughters, now almost 11 years old.
ALSO, we are asking for punitive damages in the amount of $10 million. Dkt. 1, at 13.
”

3

The gravamen of the Complaint appears to center on a Superior Court judgment, which

4 Plaintiffs request to be “overturned. This Court does not have the power to“
”
overturn a state court
”
5 judgment, and it appears that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
6 granted. Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint unless Plaintiffs can show
7 cause why the Complaint sets forth a § 1983 claim that is within this Court’s jurisdiction.
8
9

2. Motion to Appoint Counsel
In their Motion to Appoint Counsel, Plaintiffs aver the following: they have not

10 previously been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; they have made efforts to retain an
11 attorney from nonprofit organizations and firms without success; no state or federal agency has
12 concluded that their claim has merit; their income in the past 12 months is approximately
13 $55,000; and that their monthly bills amount to approximately $1900. Dkt. 2, at 1-5.
14

The Court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel, but

15 exercises this discretion in exception circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236
16 (9th Cir. 1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). To find exceptional circumstances, the Court must
17 evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate the
18 claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d
19 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).
20

In this case, given Plaintiffs’ income of approximately $55,000 within the last 12 months

21 and monthly bills of approximately $1900 per month, it appears that Plaintiffs can afford
22 counsel. Even if they could not afford counsel, the claim does not appear likely to be successful
23 on the merits. The Motion to Appoint Counsel should be denied.
24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO DENY
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL2

1

***

2

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.

3

It is further ordered that Plaintiffs may SHOW CAUSE, in writing, if any they have, why

4 this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
5 by 17 March 2016.
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

8 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
9
10
11
12

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2016.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO DENY
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL3