Rogers v. Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 117

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 109 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Theresa L Fricke.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Daryl Rogers, Prisoner ID: 412163)(MW)

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

4
5
6

DARYL ROGERS,

7
8

v.

Plaintiff,

9

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,

10

Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Case No. 3:21-cv-05011-BJR-TLF
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt.
109. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s request is denied without prejudice.
A plaintiff has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also
United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory.”). In
“exceptional circumstances,” the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
The Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the
ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the
legal issues involved”, to make an assessment whether exceptional circumstances
show that counsel should be appointed. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
-1

1

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff

2

must plead facts that show he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue(s)

3

involved, as well as an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claim.

4

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

5

Although a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, that is

6

not the test. Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

7

Plaintiff argues that he is indigent, is visually impaired and confined to a

8

wheelchair, has limited access to the law library, is unable to conduct depositions or

9

procure an expert witness as a result of his incarceration, and that he has attempted,

10

without success, to retain counsel. Dkt. 109. Plaintiff has not identified conditions that

11

render this case extraordinary or set his circumstances apart from those of any other

12

incarcerated litigant. Furthermore, plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a sufficient

13

grasp of the legal issues involved in this case and has adequately articulated the basis

14

of his claim.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
-2

1

This case does not, at this time, present the extraordinary circumstances

2

required for the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. The Court

3

therefore DENIES plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.

4
5
6

Dated this 13th day of November, 2023.

7
8

A

9

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
-3