Slaughter v. Valley View I LP

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE ANTIONETTE SLAUGHTER, CASE NO. C24-0585-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. VALLEY VIEW I LLP, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. In an order to show cause (Dkt. No. 9), the Court described the pleading infirmities in Plaintiff’s complaint and indicated that, if Plaintiff could not cure those infirmities, the Court would dismiss the case. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff renewed a request for the appointment of counsel and described the limitations she currently has in stating a claim for relief. (See generally Dkt. No. 11.)

20 The filing is not responsive to the Court’s instruction. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s need for the assistance of counsel in formulating her claims, without more clear allegations supporting the type of relief this Court may provide, the Court cannot ascertain if “exceptional circumstances” support the appointment of counsel. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 24 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (describing those circumstances required for the appointment of counsel); see also United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (noting that the appointment of counsel in a civil matter is a “privilege not a right”).

1 Accordingly, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 8) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

4 DATED this 6th day of August 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE