1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WILLIAM DAVENPORT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5334RJB-KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF LEGAL COUNSEL

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court upon plaintiff’s filing of a motion for appointment of legal counsel. (Dkt. #8). 

Plaintiff has not been granted in forma pauperis status in this case. After reviewing the motion and the

balance of the record, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further,

while the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in

forma pauperis, it may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. 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 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

Case 3:06-cv-05334-RJB Document 15 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

In his motion, plaintiff requests appointment of legal counsel in this case, asserting that he is not an

attorney, and therefore not sufficiently competent to proceed in this Court. Plaintiff also asserts that he

had “mental abnormalities and personality disorders,” and thus “cannot hope for justice in this matter

without appointment of competent legal counsel.” Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Legal Counsel

(“Plaintiff’s Motion”), p. 1. He argues that he has “a fundamental right to effective legal counsel,” and that

he has few resources with which to counter those of defendants. Id. In sum, plaintiff contends “a fair

adjudication of the merits” of his complaint, as well as equality, justice and judicial economy, make such

appointment appropriate here. Id. 

Plaintiff, however, does not have a fundamental right to legal counsel in the civil context. See

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 756 (1991) (right to counsel has never been extended beyond first

appeal of criminal conviction). That one is not an attorney, does not mean that one is incompetent to

prosecute one’s case. Indeed, as can be seen by plaintiff’s pleadings and the motions he has filed with this

Court so far, he has shown an ability to make himself be sufficiently heard. 

Although plaintiff claims to have mental health issues, he has put forth no evidence to indicate those

issues interfere in his ability to prosecute this case. Further, while the Court certainly understands the

disadvantages a pro se plaintiff may have facing represented parties, this makes plaintiff no different than

other pro se plaintiffs who have prosecuted law suits on their own behalf. Finally, even if plaintiff had been

granted in forma pauperis status in this case, he has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or that

the legal issues involved in this case are necessarily complex. Indeed, plaintiff characterizes his complaint

against defendants as “a simple tort claim.” Plaintiff’s Motion, p. 1. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of legal counsel (Dkt. #8) hereby is DENIED. 

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05334-RJB Document 15 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2