Basra v. Morgan et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Paramjit Basra, Prisoner ID: 357517)(DN) Modified on 4/30/2018 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10
11
12

PARAMJIT SINGH BASRA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C16-6005 RBL-JRC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

RICHARD MORGAN, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel

15

[Dkt. # 55]. Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, contends that he is illiterate and unfamiliar with the legal

16

process and needs appointed counsel to assist him. Plaintiff also asserts that several attorneys and

17

firms have declined to represent him in this matter.

18

No constitutional right to counsel exists for an indigent plaintiff in a civil case unless the

19

plaintiff may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

20

Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court has the

21

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants who are proceeding IFP. United States v.

22

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court will appoint counsel

23

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Id.; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th

24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL - 1

1

Cir. 1986). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood

2

of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of

3

the 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

Under the facts known by the Court, there is no good reason to appoint counsel at

7

taxpayer expense. Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims and positions without difficulty

8

in his filings, and has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly,

9

Plaintiff’s application for appointment of counsel [Dkt. #55] is DENIED.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated this 30th day of April, 2018.

12
13

A

14

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL - 2