Baker v. Avenue 5 Residential

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE JUSTIN BAKER, CASE NO. C24-0300-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 AVENUE5 RESIDENTAL, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 18). Having thoroughly considered the record before the Court, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for the reasons described below.

18 The Court previously found Plaintiff failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. (See Dkt. No. 13.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff explains that he cannot effectively prosecute his housing discrimination claims due to the technical nature of the judicial system and his “sleep issues and [] mental conditions and neurological problems.” (Dkt. No. 18-1 at 1.) While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s plight, as previously explained, “the appointment of counsel for a pro se litigant in a civil case ‘is a privilege and not a right.’” (Dkt.

24 No. 13 at 1) (quoting United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). And Plaintiff’s personal circumstances, considered through the lens of the merits of ORDER this case, are not the “‘exceptional circumstances’” required for the appointment of counsel. (Id. at 1–2) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984)). Nothing in Plaintiff’s instant filing alters the Court’s view on this issue.

4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED.

6 DATED this 17th day of April 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER