2:17-cv-00404 | W.D. Wash. | Jun 8, 2017
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MARVIN KRONA, Plaintiff, Case No. C17-0404-RAJ-MAT v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ATTORNEY AND D.O.C., et al ., GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE Defendants. This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motions for an attorney and for a continuance of the deadline to file his amended complaint. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for an attorney (Dkt. 9) is DENIED. There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis , the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon , 789 F.2d 1328" date_filed="1986-07-03" court="9th Cir." case_name="Frederick C. Wilborn v. Antonio Escalderon and Ruth Rushen">789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221" date_filed="1984-10-23" court="9th Cir." case_name="Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt Cupp">745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe , 616 F.2d 1089" date_filed="1980-04-30" court="9th Cir." case_name="Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe">616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ATTORNEY - 1 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn , 789 F.2d 1328" date_filed="1986-07-03" court="9th Cir." case_name="Frederick C. Wilborn v. Antonio Escalderon and Ruth Rushen">789 F.2d at 1331.
1 While the Court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint is deficient and must therefore be amended if he wishes to proceed with this action, plaintiff gives no indication that he lacks the ability to articulate his claims pro se . As for plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, the record is not yet sufficiently developed for this Court to make such a determination. Based on the information available to the Court at this juncture, this Court must conclude that plaintiff has not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the appointment of counsel.
(2) Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of the deadline to file his amended complaint (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff indicates that he requires additional time to file his amended complaint because the prison law librarian is only available once each week to make copies or to do electronic filing. Plaintiff does not indicate in his motion how much additional time he requires to file his amended pleading, but it appears that under the circumstances noted by plaintiff an additional thirty days should be sufficient. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted a continuance until July 10, 2017 to file his amended complaint. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this deadline, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed.
(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. DATED this 8th day of June, 2017.
A
Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge