Bradley-Zayas v. Robinson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MARCEL BRADLEY-ZAYAS, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05307-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTIONS TO APPOINT PRO BONO COUNSEL (DKT. NOS. 10, 13 DENISE ROBINSON et al., 13) 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions to appoint pro bono counsel 18 (Dkt. Nos. 10, 13). 19 I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Marcel Bradley-Zayas, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil 21 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Denise Robinson, Karen Richholt, 22 and Katherine Diesch in their individual capacities. (Dkt. No. 9.) All three defendants are 23 alleged to have been employed by the Washington State Department of Children, Youth & 24 1 Families (“DCYF”) during the period at issue in the Complaint. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that 2 the Defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful 3 searches and seizures and his constitutional rights to familial association and privacy. (Id. at 4.) 4 On September 7, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 5 No. 8.) 6 II DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff alleges that he has sought legal assistance in this matter but has been unable to 8 retain an attorney. (Dkt. No. 10.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from mental 9 health impairments and asks this Court to appoint pro bono counsel. (Id.) 10 The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but an appointment of counsel should only be granted under “exceptional 12 circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To 13 determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, a court must assess “the likelihood of the 14 plaintiff's success on the merits and . . . [evaluate] the plaintiff's ability to articulate his claims ‘in 15 light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 16 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 17 Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a mental health impairment (Dkt. No. 10) but does 18 not detail whether his impairment may limit his ability to articulate his claims. (Id.) The Court 19 notes that Plaintiff has thus far been able to successfully file multiple documents, including an 20 amended complaint, which detail the factual and legal basis of his claims. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 9.) 21 These claims, which relate to Plaintiff’s involuntary separation from his mother, do not appear 22 particularly complex based upon the record before the Court. At this preliminary stage, the 23 Court is unable to properly assess Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits. The Court thus 24 1 finds that, at this time, Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate that exceptional 2 circumstances exist sufficient to merit the appointment of counsel. 3 III CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 10, 5 13) are DENIED without prejudice. 6 7 Dated this 19th day of October, 2022. 8 9 10 A David G. Estudillo 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24