Krause v. Vancouver Police Department

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [9] 10 LEEROY E. KRAUSE, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05204-BHS-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 APPOINT COUNSEL VANCOUVER POLICE DEP'T, et al., [13] Defendants. [14] 15 This matter is before the Court on referral from the District Court and on Plaintiff’s 16 motion requesting assistance of counsel (Dkt. 65). Defendants have filed responses (Dkts. 68, 17 69) and Plaintiff has not filed a reply. 18 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 civil action. Storseth v. 19 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. 20 Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is 21 discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may 22 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1) (formerly 28 23 U.S.C. § 1915 (d)). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other [24] 1 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the 2 Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the 3 [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 4 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 5 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp 6 of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of 7 his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 Although a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel, that is not the test. 9 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 . 10 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist requiring the 11 appointment of counsel. Plaintiff cites his ignorance of the law and anxiety, but those are not 12 extraordinary circumstances that set him aside from other prisoner plaintiffs. See Siglar v. 13 Hopkins, 822 F. App’x 610 , 612 (9th Cir. 2020) (denying appointment of counsel because 14 plaintiff’s “circumstances were not exceptionally different from the majority of the challenges 15 faced by pro se litigants”) (citations omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficient 16 grasp of the legal issues involved in this case and an ability to articulate the factual basis of his 17 claims, having filed an Amended Complaint that passed this Court’s screening. 18 // 19 // 20 // [24] 1 This case does not, at this time, present the extraordinary circumstances required for the 2 appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for counsel (Dkt. 65) is DENIED without 3 prejudice. [4] 5 Dated this 4th day of October, 2023. [6] A [7] 8 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge