Nguyen v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ELLE NGUYEN, et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01990-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. MERCER ISLAND BOYS BASKETBALL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL BOOSTER CLUB, Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Affidavit for Appointment of Counsel.” Dkt. # 26.

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. 18 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 20 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional 21 circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 23 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the party seeking appointment of counsel must show indigency. 29 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Accepting plaintiffs’ financial disclosure, which shows $1683 in annual income and $4775 in monthly expenses, as true, the narrow defamation claim asserted in this litigation is not factually or legally complex. Ms. Nguyen has served discovery regarding the claim and appears to be capable of pursuing this litigation pro se. Plaintiffs have not shown the sort of exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel at the public’s expense. Dkt. # 26 is, therefore, DENIED.

12 Dated this 24th day of March, 2025.

Robert S. Lasnik 15 United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF