Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] 8 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01205-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. [10] 11 GRATO INTERNATIONAL, et al., ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Defendants. [14] This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rizwa Iqbal’s second letter [15] request for court-appointed counsel. Dkt. # 65. [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 REQUEST 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] Mr. Iqbal has produced evidence of indigency and confirms that he is unable to [4] 5 afford legal representation to defend himself in this matter. Plaintiffs, Amazon.com and 6 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., have accused Mr. Iqbal of trademark counterfeiting, [7] trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, and false designation of [8] origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121 , breach of contract, and unfair and [9] 10 deceptive acts in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. While the factual 11 allegations regarding the conduct alleged are not complicated, intellectual property is a [12] challenging area of law even those who have legal training. Mr. Iqbal asserts that he does [13] not have the legal knowledge or ability to understand the claims brought against him or to [14] 15 respond appropriately. 16 Unfortunately, Mr. Iqbal’s situation is not “exceptional.” Amazon.com and its [17] vendors have filed approximately 100 trademark and copyright infringement actions in this [18] District, suing hundreds, if not thousands, of entities and individuals like Mr. Iqbal, many [19] of whom are equally impecunious, reside outside the United States, and are equally [20] 21 unfamiliar with the relevant law. This District does not have the resources to provide [22] counsel to all pro se litigants and generally reserves court-appointed representation for [23] those claiming that their civil rights have been violated. See General Order 07-23 (adopting [24] an amended Plan for the Representation of Pro Se Litigants in Civil Rights Actions). [26] ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 1 The request for court-appointed counsel is therefore DENIED. [3] DATED this 12th day of May, 2025. [4] 5 A [6] Robert S. Lasnik 7 United States Distric t Judge [26] ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF