Martin v. Strange

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [6] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 MICHAEL MARTIN, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05039-BHS-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 11 CHERYL STRANGE , 12 Defendant. 13 Plaintiff Michael Martin, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 14 rights action, has filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 12. The Court DENIES the motion. 15 Generally, a person has no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 16 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under [17] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1), but only under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections 18 Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 19 circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 20 ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 21 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). [23] 1 Mr. Martin states that he requires appointed counsel because he cannot afford counsel, 2 imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate, the issues are complex, he has limited 3 knowledge of the law, and counsel is better able to handle all aspects of pretrial and trial 4 proceedings. Dkt. 12 at 1–2. These are not extraordinary circumstances. In addition, plaintiff has 5 not shown that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his claim. Appointment of counsel is 6 therefore not justified at this time, and the Court DENIES the motion. Dkt. 12. 7 DATED this 14th day of April, 2023. 8 A [9] BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge