Hathaway v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE CONNER ANTHONY HATHAWAY, CASE NO. C22-0567JHC Plaintiff, ORDER REFERRING MOTION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Conner Anthony Hathaway’s motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. See Dkt. # 4.

On April 27, 2022, Mr. Hathaway filed this action against the United States of America as a pro se litigant. Dkt. #5. On June 1, 2022, the Court dismissed Mr. Hathaway’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and granted him leave to amend his complaint within fourteen days of the order. Dkt. # 7. On June 13, 2022, Mr. Hathaway filed a Motion for Extension, requesting an additional 21 days to amend his complaint. Dkt. #8. In the motion, Mr. Hathaway included a section entitled, “Application for Court Appointed Counsel: Merits of Claim,” which this Court construes as a motion for appointment of counsel. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that the Court must construe pro se pleadings liberally). The Court granted Mr. Hathaway an extension until July 6, 2022 to file his amended complaint. Dkt. # 9.

This District has implemented a plan for court-appointed representation of civil rights litigants. The plan currently in effect requires the Court to assess a plaintiff’s case before forwarding it to a pro bono screening committee for further review and a possible appointment of pro bono counsel. See General Order No. 16-20, Section 3(c) (Dec. 8, 2020). The Court assesses the plaintiff’s case to determine that it is not frivolous and that the plaintiff is financially eligible. Id. Plaintiff’s submissions satisfy the court that there is an adequate basis to refer his case to the Screening Committee. Dkt. # 4 (Order granting Mr. Hathaway leave to proceed IFP); Dkt. #7 (“Mr. Hathaway does allege facts that may sufficiently plead a Bivens action, see, e.g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), and therefore his complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.”).

14 Under Section 3(c) of the District’s pro bono plan, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to forward the operative complaint (Dkt. # 5), the motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 8), and the pleadings and documents filed to date to the Screening Committee. See General Order No. 16-20, Section 3(c). The Court ORDERS the Screening Committee to review the case and make a recommendation to the Court in accordance with the pro bono plan and the rules for the pro bono panel on or before July 15, 2022. See id., Section 3(f). The Clerk shall RENOTE Mr. Hathaway’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 8) for July 15, 2022, pending the Screening Committee’s recommendation as to whether the Court should appoint counsel. See id. Dated this 15th day of June, 2022. wha Chun 4 Sica oo United States District Judge