Holtz v. Karr
Filing
52
ORDER denying 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
5
6
7
RONALD HOLTZ,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
v.
CASE NO. C12-5111 RJB/KLS
MARTHA KARR, MARVIN SPENCER,
C KOLLIN, SHARLA JAMES
HUTCHISON, K MILLER, BRASWELL,
JUDY SNOW, DANNY OTA, M
JOURNEY, RICHARD ODEGARD,
PIERCE COUNTY DETENTION AND
CORRECTIONS CENTER, MICHAEL
KAWAMURA, RICHARD
WHITEHEAD, DEPARTMENT OF
ASSIGNED COUNSEL,
15
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COUNSEL
Defendants.
16
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 50. This is
17
Plaintiff’s second motion for counsel. His first motion (ECF No. 7) was denied. ECF No. 14,
18
Having carefully considered the motion and balance of the record, the Court finds that the
19
motion should be denied.
20
DISCUSSION
21
No constitutional right exists to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. Storseth v.
22
Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). See also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.
23
Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL- 1
1 discretionary, not mandatory.”) However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may
2 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28
3 U.S.C.§ 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
4 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis supplied.) To decide whether exceptional
5 circumstances exist, the court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and]
6 the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
7 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting
8 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts that show he
9 has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue involved and an inadequate ability to
10 articulate the factual basis of his claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d
11 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
12
That a pro se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel is not the test.
13 Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Moreover, the need for discovery does not necessarily qualify the issues
14 involved as “complex.” Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Most actions require development of further
15 facts during litigation. But, if all that was required to establish the complexity of the relevant
16 issues was a demonstration of the need for development of further facts, then practically all cases
17 would involve complex legal issues. Id.
18
Plaintiff states that he is unable to afford counsel, that his current confinement will limit
19 his ability to litigate, that the issues are complex, that his has limited access to a law library and
20 limited knowledge of the law. These are not exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff also states that
21 he is severely mentally and physically disabled and is on Social Security income. However,
22 Plaintiff filed his complaint pro se and has demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims pro se
23 in a clear fashion understandable to this Court.
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL- 2
1
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court notes that this is not a complex case involving
2 complex facts or law. In addition, Plaintiff presents no evidence to show that he is likely to
3 succeed on the merits of his case. While Plaintiff may not have vast resources or legal training,
4 he meets the threshold for a pro se litigant. Concerns regarding investigation, access to legal
5 resources or examination of witnesses are not exceptional factors, but are the type of difficulties
6 encountered by many pro se litigants. Plaintiff has failed in his burden to demonstrate an
7 inability to present his claims to this Court without counsel.
8
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
9
(1)
Plaintiff’s motion for counsel (ECF No. 50) is DENIED.
10
(2)
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.
11
Dated this 16th day of November, 2012.
12
A
13
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL- 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
