Casterlow-Bey v. Jarmon

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 6 Motion for Court Appointed Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke. (GMR- cc: pltf)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

GARY CASTERLOW-BEY,
Case No. C17-5647 BHS-TLF

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTED COUNSEL

v.
ANDREA JARMON, DEPARTMENT OF
ASSIGNED COUNSEL,
Defendants.

11
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for court-appointed counsel.
12
Dkt. 6. The Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time.
13
No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v.
14
Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.
15
Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is
16
discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may
17
appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28
18
U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
19
grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the
20
Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the
21
[plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”
22
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718
23
F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp
24
25
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTED
COUNSEL - 1

1

of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of

2

his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

3

At this time, the plaintiff has not shown, nor does the Court find, this case involves

4

complex facts or law. The plaintiff has also not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of his

5

case. The Court is directing the plaintiff to amend his complaint because he has not stated a

6

claim for which relief can be granted. Further, the “plaintiff's incarceration and limited access to

7

legal materials are not exceptional factors constituting exceptional circumstances that warrant the

8

appointment of counsel. Rather, they are the type of difficulties encountered by many pro se

9

litigants.” Dancer v. Jeske, 2009 WL 1110432, *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2009). Therefore, the

10
11
12
13

Court finds the plaintiff has failed to show the appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 6) is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk
shall send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff.
Dated this 29th day of August, 2017.

14
15

A

16
17

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTED
COUNSEL - 2