1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 JERRY CHANG, CASE NO. C24-00712-KKE 8 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR COURT- 9 APPOINTED COUNSEL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 10 EDUCATION, Defendant. 11

12 Mr. Jerry Chang, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed a complaint 13 against the Department of Education (“the Department”) alleging it improperly denied his 14 application for relief from repayment of certain funds under

, and that the 15 Department has improperly engaged in debt collection activities pursuant to that denial. Dkt. No. 16 4. Mr. Chang filed a motion requesting the Court appoint counsel to represent him in this matter. 17 Dkt. No. 5. For the reasons below, the Court grants the motion in part, and appoints counsel for 18 the limited purpose of assisting Mr. Chang in re-pleading his complaint. 19 Generally, no constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in civil actions. Storseth v. 20 Spellman,

(9th Cir. 1981). In “exceptional circumstances,” however, a 21 district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under

(e)(1). See, 22 e.g., Palmer v. Valdez,

(9th Cir. 2009). To decide whether exceptional 23 circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] 24 1 the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 2 issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon,

(9th Cir. 1986) (cleaned up). 3 Neither of these considerations is dispositive, and the Court must instead view them together.

4 The Court is not at this time able to assess Mr. Chang’s likelihood of success because his 5 complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations or citation to authority under which the 6 Court could grant the relief he requests. Mr. Chang asks the Court to issue a preliminary injunction 7 to pause garnishment of his Social Security Disability Insurance payments, and for a judgment 8 cancelling his debt and awarding a total of $1.5 million in damages. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6. While Mr. 9 Chang identifies the statutes he alleges the Department has violated, he does not identify authority 10 that indicates he is entitled to the relief he requests. See Dkt. No. 4. 11 The Court nonetheless finds exceptional circumstances exist. Mr. Chang’s ability to 12 articulate his claims pro se, and the complexity of the legal issues involved weigh in favor of

13 providing some level of Court-appointed counsel. Mr. Chang indicates that he has “blindness 14 disability.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Separately, based on the complaint, the Court finds Mr. Chang does 15 not have the ability to clearly articulate his claims at this time. In addition, the legal issues involved 16 are complex relative to Mr. Chang’s ability to articulate his claims—e.g., appealing the decision 17 of an administrative agency, and showing entitlement to damages based on government action. 18 Accordingly, the Court finds exceptional circumstances exist that entitle Mr. Chang to some 19 assistance navigating this stage of the legal process. 20 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Mr. Chang’s 21 motion. The Court appoints counsel for the limited purpose of assisting Mr. Chang in amending 22 his complaint. Pro bono counsel has the discretion to decide to assist Mr. Chang in additional or

23 alternative ways alongside the complaint drafting process. After Mr. Chang amends his complaint, 24 1 he may submit a motion asking the Court to appoint counsel for subsequent proceedings which the 2 Court will evaluate at that time. 3 The Court DIRECTS the Western District of Washington’s Pro Bono Coordinator to

4 identify an attorney(s) or law firm from the Pro Bono Panel to represent Mr. Chang as described 5 above. 6 Dated this 26th day of June, 2024. 7 8 A 9 Kymberly K. Evanson United States District Judge 10

11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24