Holiwell v. Higgins

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 ALICIA SANCHEZ HOLIWELL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00720-RSL 9 Plaintiff, v. [10] 11 C. ANDY HIGGINS, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND 12 Defendants. RENOTING MOTIONS [14] This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Application for Court-Appointed [15] Counsel in Title VII Action.” Dkt. # 45. [16] Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. [17] Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under 18 “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 , 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional [20] circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 21 merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 22 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive 23 and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 , 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). [26] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 1 Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the party seeking [2] appointment of counsel must show indigency. [3] This District has implemented a plan for court-appointed representation of civil [4] 5 rights litigants. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Plan for Pro Se Litigant Representation 6 in Civil Rights Actions (as amended, effective Jan. 1, 2024), the Court referred this matter [7] to the Pro Bono Coordinator and the Pro Bono Screening Committee for further review to [8] determine if pro bono counsel is warranted. After considering the allegations, plaintiff’s [9] 10 supplemental submission, and the resources available, the Screening Committee 11 recommends against the appointment of pro bono counsel in this case. The Court adopts [12] that recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. # 45, is therefore [13] DENIED. [15] 16 While the motion to appoint counsel was pending, defendants filed two motions to [17] dismiss (Dkt. # 48 and # 73) and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions [18] should not be imposed for failure to timely file a Joint Status Report (Dkt. # 50). These [19] matters shall be renoted on the Court’s calendar to give plaintiff an opportunity to respond [20] 21 now that the representational issue has been settled. The Clerk of Court is directed to [22] renote the Order to Show Cause (Dkt. # 50) on the Court’s calendar for February 7, 2025, [23] and the motions to dismiss (Dkt. # 48 and 73) for consideration on February 14, 2025. The [24] parties’ responses to the Order to Show Cause are due on or before February 6th. Plaintiff’s [26] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 1 responses to the motions to dismiss must be received by the Court on or before February [2] 10th. [4] 5 Dated this 13th day of January, 2025. [6] 7 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge [26] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF