Bistryski v. DOC Health Services of Stafford Creek Corrections Center et al

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 7 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Christopher Bistryski, Prisoner ID: 306886) (GMR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW BISTRYSKI,
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-5369 RJB-TLF

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL

v.
10
11
12

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

13
Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Bistryski’s motion for the appointment of
14
counsel. Dkt. 7. Mr. Bistryski states that he requires appointment of counsel as he has been
15
unable to obtain counsel on his own and he is indigent. Id.
16
DISCUSSION
17
There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party
19
proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v.
20
Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th
21
Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional
22
circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the
23
ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL- 1

1 involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be
2 viewed together before reaching a decision on request of counsel under Section 1915(d). Id.
3

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se but has not

4 demonstrated that the issues involved in this case are complex. Plaintiff’s incarceration and
5 limited legal training are not exceptional factors constituting exceptional circumstances that
6 warrant the appointment of counsel. Rather, they are the type of difficulties encountered by many
7 pro se litigants. Plaintiff has also not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. See, e.g.,
8 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
9

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

10

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 7) is DENIED.

11

(2)

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to

12 counsel for defendants.
13

Dated this 30th day of August, 2017.

14

A

15
16

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL- 2