Islas v. Bank of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE IVAN GABRIEL ISLAS, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00493-JHC ORDER Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Application for Court-Appointed Counsel. Dkt. # 7.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion.

Plaintiff appears to allege that he is or was a customer of Defendant Bank of America (BOA). Dkt. # 6 at 7-10. He asserts numerous claims against BOA, primarily sounding in fraud.

Id. at 7. And he seeks $100,000,000 in damages. Id. at 10. Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis.

Dkt. # 5.

“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)). The appointment of counsel for a pro se litigant in a civil case “is a privilege and not a right.” United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965). 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 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 v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

7 This District has adopted a plan for recruiting counsel to represent indigent litigants pro g || Sono, but it only pertains to plaintiffs in “civil rights actions.” See W.D. Wash. General Order 16-20. Plaintiff says, “This action seeks relief under federal statutes protecting civil rights.”

19 || Dkt. #7 at 1. But this is not apparent from the face of his complaint. See Dkt. # 6. It looks 11 more like a consumer case. Jd. Further, Plaintiff does not purport to present exceptional 12 circumstances. See Dkt. #7. He neither shows a likelihood of success on the merits or an 13 inability to articulate his claims. See Dkt. ## 6, 7.

14 Given the above, the Court DENIES the motion.

15 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2024.

T oh. 4. Chas 18 John H. Chun United States District Judge