Douglas v. Pierce County Medical Dept et al

Filing 2

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; GRANTING Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING Motion to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 12/11/2017 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

QUINCY DOUGLAS,

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C17-6005 RBL
ORDER GRANTING IFP
APPLICATION AND DENYING
COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL

PIERCE COUNTY MEDICAL DEPT.,
et. al,
Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Qunicy Douglas’ motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and on his application for court-appointed counsel [Dkt. #1].
I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

16

completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A court has broad

17

discretion in resolving the application, but “the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil

18

actions for damages should be sparingly granted.” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.

19

1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should “deny leave to proceed in

20

forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action

21

is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.

22

1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint

23

is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778

24

F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION AND
DENYING COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL - 1

1

First, Douglas is unemployed and indicates his only income is in the form of minimal

2

public assistance. He avers that he has no savings, property, or cash on hand. He has made the

3

requisite showing of indigency. Second, Douglas sues Pierce County Medical Department for

4

allegedly denying him medical care for his broken hand. On its face, his complaint does not

5

appear to be frivolous or without merit. Accordingly, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis

6

[Dkt. #1] is GRANTED.

7

II. COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL

8

Douglas also requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in this case. In

9

exceptional circumstances, the Court may ask an attorney to represent any person unable to

10

afford counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.

11

1984). To find exceptional circumstances, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on

12

the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of the

13

complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

14

While the Court grants Douglas’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it cannot be said that he

15

has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. Additionally, Douglas has clearly

16

articulated his claims pro se in his proposed complaint. Douglas’ application for court-appointed

17

counsel is DENIED. Douglas may wish to consult the Pro Se Guide To Filing Your Lawsuit in

18

Federal Court available at http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/court-forms.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated this 11th day of December, 2017.

22

A

23

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

21

24
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION AND
DENYING COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL - 2