Crawford v. Chevron Corporation

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE — 7 — ALEXIS CRAWFORD and BETHANY CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05114-JHC — 8 — MCAULEY, ORDER 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., 12 Defendants. — 13 — — 14 — This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Alexis Crawford’s “Motion to Appoint — 15 — Counsel.” Dkt. # 16. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges Defendants — 16 — violated Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code 49.60. See Dkt. # 9. — 17 — This is Plaintiff’s second motion requesting appointment of counsel. See Dkt. # 10. On — 18 — March 27, 2023, the Court denied the first. Dkt. # 14. The arguments Plaintiff advances in this — 19 — motion are almost identical to those raised in the first motion. See Dkt. # 10. This time, Plaintiff — 20 — requests appointment of counsel because: (1) Plaintiff is incarcerated, thereby complicating — 21 — efforts to obtain counsel; and (2) Plaintiff says surveillance camera footage is available to — 22 — support their allegations, the same argument made before. Dkt. # 16 at 2–3. See Dkt. # 10 at 2. — 23 — — 24 — 1 “In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court ‘may request an attorney to represent 2 any person unable to afford counsel.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 3 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1)). Deciding whether to appoint such counsel is 4 within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 5 Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of exceptional 6 circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 7 ability of the plaintiff to articulate their claims pro se given the complexity of the legal issues 8 involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 Plaintiff has failed to show that any exceptional circumstances exist for the appointment 10 of counsel. Up until this point, Plaintiff has not established an inability to articulate the bases of 11 the claims without the assistance of counsel. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. And the legal 12 issues presented here, though not fully defined at this point, do not appear to be particularly 13 complex. See id. Plaintiff has likewise not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 14 The motion does not address this element, besides mentioning that the Washington State Human 15 Rights Commission “interviewed [Plaintiff] but did [not] pick [Plaintiff’s] case.” Dkt. # 16 at 2. 16 At this early stage of litigation, the record is not sufficiently developed for the Court to make 17 such a determination. 18 Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel 19 without prejudice. Dkt. # 16. Plaintiff may renew this motion later in the proceedings only if 20 exceptional circumstances—circumstances not set forth in either of Plaintiff’s first two motions, 21 see Dkts. ## 10, 16—warrant the appointment of counsel. 22 / 23 / 24 / l Dated this 2nd day of May, 2023. ° Cohn 4. Chun 3 John H. Chun United States District Judge — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — 1] — 12 — — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 —