Fouts v. Houlton

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 8 — WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA — 9 — 10 NATHAN BRADLEY FOUTS, CASE NO. 3:23-CV-5594-RAJ-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION 12 TO APPOINT COUNSEL DIANE HOULTON, et al., — 13 — Defendants. — 14 — 15 Plaintiff Nathan Bradley Fouts, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a third 16 motion for court-appointed counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Dkt. 42. 17 There is no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel in § 1983 actions. Storseth v. 18 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Instead, “[a]ppointment of counsel under this 19 section is discretionary, not mandatory.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 20 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995)”). A district court may exercise its discretion to appoint counsel for 21 indigent civil litigants only in exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1); Rand v. 22 Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 23 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court evaluates “the likelihood of — 24 — 1 success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of 2 the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 3 Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). When requesting 4 court-appointed counsel, a plaintiff must show he is unable to grasp the legal issues involved in 5 his case and unable to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 6 America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 7 Here, Plaintiff does not argue he is unable to grasp the legal issues involved in this case 8 or unable to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Instead, he states he requires assistance of 9 counsel to engage in discovery and to set up a conference with defense counsel.1 Dkt. 42. 10 Discovery is a routine process that occurs in all litigation, it is not an extraordinary circumstance 11 necessitating the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third motion for court12 appointed counsel (Dkt. 42) is denied. 13 Dated this 9th day of February, 2024. — 14 — A — 15 — David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — 23 1 Given Plaintiff’s statement he has found it difficult to communicate with defense counsel regarding discovery, attorneys for all defendants are reminded of their obligation to respond in good faith to any discovery 24 requests made by Plaintiff.