01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD R. SAINTCALLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O L. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0040-MJP

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

PENDING MOTIONS

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel, for

leave to serve defendants with a revised first set of interrogatories, and for leave to file an

amended complaint. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's motions, and the balance of the record,

does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 8) 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, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984);

Case 2:06-cv-00040-MJP Document 22 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -2

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 the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789

F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiff has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that, in

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims pro se.

Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional circumstances which

warrant appointment of counsel at the present time.

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve defendants with a revised first set of

interrogatories (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks leave of court to serve defendants with

a revised first set of interrogatories because defendants objected to the original interrogatories on

the grounds that they did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).

Defendants, in their opposition to the instant motion, assert that they have, in fact, answered the

interrogatories despite their objections. As defendants have apparently answered plaintiff’s first

set of interrogatories, the instant motion is moot.

(3) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint was filed on March 30,

2006, and was noted for consideration on April 14, 2006. Defendants have not filed a response

to this motion. However, it appears that a response from defendants may aid this Court in its

resolution of plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Accordingly, defendants are directed to file

and serve a response to that motion not later than April 24, 2006. Plaintiff may file and serve a

reply brief not later than April 28, 2006. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. No. 20) is

RE-NOTED on the Court’s calendar for consideration on April 28, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00040-MJP Document 22 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS

PAGE -3

(4) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 14th day of April , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00040-MJP Document 22 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 3