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

1

 While plaintiff filed two separate motions to compel the motions are identical.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL BURNHART, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C06-0870-JLR-MAT

)

v. )

)

SUE BELT, et al., ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Defendants. ) AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL

____________________________________)

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the

Court on plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery and to appoint counsel. The Court, having

considered plaintiff’s pending motions, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and

ORDER as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (Dkt. Nos. 25 and 26) are DENIED1

. 

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to produce documents related to his medical care and to his

transfers to the segregation unit at the King County Regional Justice Center. Defendants, in their

Case 2:06-cv-00870-JLR Document 35 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 2

response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, assert that they have adequately responded to all

discovery requests directed to them in this case. Defendants also note that they received no

discovery requests in this action related to plaintiff’s medical care and, in any event, that such

requests would not be relevant to this action which does not involve any medical care issues.

Because the record reflects that defendants have responded to the discovery requests directed to

them in this case, and because plaintiff identifies no deficiencies in those responses, his motion to

compel must be denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s second motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED. As plaintiff

was previously advised, 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); 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 in this action, he is unable to articulate his

claims pro se. Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional

circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel at the present time.

Case 2:06-cv-00870-JLR Document 35 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 3

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

to the Honorable James L. Robart.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00870-JLR Document 35 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3