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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DARRELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5342RBL

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Court reviewed the complaint and found it deficient. Plaintiff was ordered to file an

amended complaint and given until September 29th, 2006 to comply.

Since the filing of that order plaintiff has filed three documents. The first document is a letter

asking if an attorney would be appointed for his case. (Dkt. # 10). The second motion is titled as a

“Motion to Join Defendants”. (Dkt. # 11). In the second motion plaintiff asks to have Michael J.

Whelan and several John Does added to this action but he list no facts concerning these persons and

does not cure any defect in the original complaint. (Dkt. # 11). The final filing from plaintiff again

asks for counsel and plaintiff places documents before the court showing he is trying to review his

medical file to obtain names of possible defendants but there is a time delay because of the

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 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

Department of Corrections not allowing a timely review of the files. (Dkt. # 12). Attached to this

document is an attempt to amend the compliant that names multiple John Does and gives facts. 

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(d), 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 made no showing of likelihood of success on the merits, although the facts in his

complaint are sufficient to state a claim. The current complaint is deficient because parties are not

named and the facts are not tied to the actions of any named party. Plaintiff has articulated his facts

well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 10 and 12) are DENIED. 

The proposed amended complaint is a step in the right direction. However, the naming of

multiple John Does will not be sufficient for purposes of service of process. (Dkt. # 12). The “Kite”

Mr. Johnson has provided shows prison officials stating there are appointments available in October

for review of his medical files.

An Extension of time to submit an amended complaint is in order. Plaintiff will have until

November 10th , 2006 to file his amended complaint. 

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and note the November 10th,

2006 due date.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2