Addleman v. King County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LINCOLN LANE ADDLEMAN JR. et al., CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00286 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. KING COUNTY et al., Defendants.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lincoln Lane Addleman, Jr.’s “Second Motion Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 12 Where Hackers Interfere & Even If I Stay Off the Internet Cannot Trust.” Dkt. # 31. The motion is noted for June 9, 2023, but no defendants have appeared in the matter thus far, and there is no reason for the Court to wait further to rule on it.

18 Addleman, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action. Dkt.

19 ## 6, 7. “In proceedings in forma pauperis, the district court ‘may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.’” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Deciding whether to appoint such counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of l exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate their claims pro se given the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn vy. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

4 This is Addleman’s second motion requesting the appointment of counsel. The basis of || this motion appears to be the technological difficulties Addleman has recently encountered when filing his amended complaint. See Dkt. # 31 at 1 (claiming that “big tech” or “hackers” interfered by “erasing files [from his] computer”). As with his first motion, Addleman has not shown that any exceptional circumstances exist. He has not established an inability to articulate g bases of his claims without the assistance of counsel. See Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103. And _ || the legal issues presented here do not appear to be particularly complex. As before, Addleman 11 has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The record is still not sufficiently developed 12 for the Court to make such a determination.

13 This case does not present the requisite exceptional circumstances for the appointment of 14 counsel. The Court DENIES Addleman’s motion without prejudice. Dkt. #31. The Court || warns Addleman that he should not file another such motion unless there are exceptional 16 circumstances that warrant the appointment of counsel.

17 Dated this 26th day of May, 2023.

Corba 4 Chan 19 John H. Chun United States District Judge