Willis v. Kiser et al

Filing 11

ORDER Denying 6 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.**3 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Darrel Willis, Prisoner ID: 854804)(GMR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

DARREL PATRICK WILLIS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05373-BHS-JRC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
NICK KISER,
Defendant.

15
The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States
16
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local
17
Magistrate Judge Rules MJR1, MJR3 and MJR4.
18
Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 6.
19
Plaintiff asks that the Court assign counsel or “some type of legal assistance” because he has no
20
access to the law library and no legal education. Id. However, this case has no hearings
21
scheduled and plaintiff indicates no other exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment
22
of counsel at this time. The Court denies the motion without prejudice.
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL - 1

1
2

DISCUSSION
No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v.

3

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a

4

district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)

5

(formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled

6

on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances

7

exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of

8

the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

9

involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v.

10

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an

11

insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate

12

the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103

13

(9th Cir. 2004).

14

Plaintiff’s motion states that he is confused and unsure how to proceed with his case. Dkt.

15

6. He states that “[a]ll of the public information is disappearing” and he does not know how to

16

request or unseal records. Id. However, mere confusion is not an exceptional circumstance.

17

Plaintiff has adequately articulated the facts in his case. Dkt. 5. Though he is unsure of the valid

18

legal standard, he clearly and concisely explained the scenario underlying his claim. Id. He is

19

able to adequately articulate his claims, even if he is unclear on the legal standard. See Agyeman,

20

390 F.3d at 1103. In addition, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the

21

merits. As it stands, plaintiff has not included facts amounting to his claimed First Amendment

22

violation, nor has he claimed any other constitutional violation. Dkt. 5. Because of this,

23

plaintiff’s allegations in his motion do not amount to an exceptional circumstance.

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL - 2

1
2
3
4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
without prejudice (Dkt. 6).
Dated this 7th day of August, 2017.

5
6

A

7

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL - 3