Krona v. DOC
2:17-cv-00404
W.D. Wash.Jun 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Marvin Krona filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and moved for appointed counsel and a continuance to file an amended complaint.
- The Court previously found the original complaint deficient and ordered Krona to file an amended complaint.
- Krona proceeds in forma pauperis and requested counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
- Krona contends he needs more time to file the amended complaint because the prison law librarian is available only once per week for copying and electronic filing.
- The Court evaluated whether exceptional circumstances warranted appointment of counsel and whether additional time to amend was justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) | Krona requested counsel to help prosecute his § 1983 claims | (Not briefed in detail; default position: no right to appointed counsel in § 1983) | Denied — no exceptional circumstances shown; Krona can articulate claims and merits not yet ripe for evaluation |
| Whether to extend the deadline to file an amended complaint | Krona needs extra time due to limited law librarian access for copying/filing | (No opposition noted) | Granted — 30-day extension to July 10, 2017; failure to file will lead to recommendation of dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel in forma pauperis requires exceptional circumstances balancing likelihood of success and plaintiff’s ability to articulate claims)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (discussing standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (addressing appointment of counsel standards in civil litigation)