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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?