Johnson v. Kienzle

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 GERALD JOHNSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-02138-RAJ 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 DR. DEVON KIENZLE, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Gerald Johnson’s 3 Application for Court-Appointed Counsel (the “Application,” Dkt. # 9) and subsequent 4 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion,” Dkt. # 12). Defendant Dr. Devon 5 Kienzle did not file a response. The Court has reviewed the Application and Motion, the 6 balance of the record, and the governing law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 7 DENIES the Application and Motion. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel in this civil rights action arising under 10 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant’s conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. 11 Dkt. # 7 at 5. Plaintiff was grated leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Dkt. 12 # 6. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts have “discretion to ‘request’ appointment of 13 counsel for litigants proceeding in forma pauperis in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Chan 14 v. Ryan, No. 22-cv-1796, 2023 WL 197429, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023). In 15 assessing whether a plaintiff has shown “exceptional circumstances” warranting the 16 appointment of counsel, courts consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well 17 as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of 18 the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1986). 19 Neither factor weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. First, the Court cannot find that 20 Plaintiff’s claim is likely to be meritorious based on the “undeveloped, limited record 21 before it.” Chan, 2023 WL 197429, at *2 (citing Sam v. Renton Sch. Dist., No. C21- 22 1363-RSM, 2021 WL 4952187, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2021)). Plaintiff’s Complaint 23 appears to allege a § 1983 action against a physician on the basis of medical malpractice, 24 and Plaintiff “has not otherwise provided any compelling arguments or evidence that this 25 case is likely to succeed on the merits.” Id. (citing Ralls v. Facebook, No. C16-0007- 26 1 JLR, 2016 WL 10591399, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2016)); see generally Dkt. # 7. 2 Additionally, this action does not appear to involve legal or factual issues that are 3 sufficiently complex to preclude Plaintiff from articulating his claims pro se. Chan, 2023 4 WL 197429, at *2. The Ninth Circuit has held that a litigant faces a “high bar to show 5 that the legal issues involved are sufficiently complex, and that he is therefore impeded 6 in his ability to present his case.” Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App’x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 7 2020). Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth a claim for “medical neglect” and a violation of 8 the Eighth Amendment based on the defendant’s alleged failure to perform his medical 9 “duty.” Dkt. # 7 at 9. These theories are not “exceptionally complex” such that Plaintiff 10 is hindered from adequately articulating his claims pro se. Munywe v. Dier, No. 3:21- 11 CV-05431-BJR-JRC, 2022 WL 4466156, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2022); 12 cf. Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2004) (pro se 13 prisoner’s complaint raised a “triple complexity” requiring legal skill to distinguish non- 14 actionable Bivens case from potentially meritorious Federal Tort Claims Act case). 15 While Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to afford counsel, Dkt. # 12 at 1, his 16 financial circumstances do not justify the appointment of counsel in the absence of 17 exceptional circumstances” as set forth in Weygandt. 718 F.2d at 954. Additionally, 18 while Plaintiff indicates that he has attempted to contact “over 30 attorneys in 6 months,” 19 Dkt. # 9 at 2, Plaintiff’s “difficulty obtaining counsel does not amount to a showing of 20 exceptional circumstances warranting court-appointed counsel.” Arenas v. Inslee, No. 21 19-CV-5339-RJB, 2019 WL 3387333, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 26, 2019). Finally, 22 although Plaintiff contends that “counsel would better enable Plaintiff to present evidence 23 and cross examine witnesses” at a potential trial, Dkt. # 12 at 1, the fact “[t]hat a pro 24 se litigant may be better served with the assistance of counsel is not the test.” Steiner v. 25 Hammond, No. C13-5120 RBL/KLS, 2013 WL 3777068, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 16, 26 1 2013) (citing Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1997), overruled on other 2 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998)). The Court therefore finds that exceptional 3 circumstances do not exist to justify the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff 4 may renew his request for court-appointed counsel at a later time if circumstances 5 change. 6 III. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for Court- 8 Appointed Counsel and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. ## 9, 12. 9 10 Dated this 9th day of April, 2026. 11 A 12 13 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26