Curry v. Vancouver Housing Authority et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 1/4/2017 (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

KENNETH TAYLOR CURRY,

CASE NO. C16-5784-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
11
12
13

VANCOUVER HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff Curry’s Motion for Court Appointed
15
Counsel [Dkt. # 8]. Curry was granted in forma pauperis status, on his second attempt. His claim
16
difficult-to-understand claim relates the Vancouver Housing authority’s denial of a “housing
17
voucher” to which Curry apparently claims he was entitled.
18
An indigent plaintiff in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel unless he may
19
lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs., 452 U.S.
20
18, 25 (1981). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has discretion to appoint
21
counsel for litigants who are proceeding in forma pauperis. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.
22
Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court will appoint counsel only under
23
“exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1 “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success
2 on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
3 complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331 (internal quotations
4 omitted). These factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on whether to
5 appoint counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Id.
6

It is clear that Curry faces a challenge in articulating his claim. Through two complaints

7 and the pending motion, it remains far from clear what he claims he was entitled to or why the
8 denial was a violation of his civil rights. But it is also far from clear that the claim has any merit,
9 or that he has any likelihood of success on it. There is nothing in the record indicating that this is
10 an “exceptional case” warranting the appointment of an attorney at public expense. The motion
11 for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated this 4th day of January, 2017.

15

A

16

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2