Amazon.com Inc v. Grato International

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01205-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. GRATO INTERNATIONAL, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 12 Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rizwan Iqbal’s letter request for court-appointed counsel. Dkt. # 61.

Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). However, a court may under 18 “exceptional circumstances” appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, a court must consider “the likelihood of success on the 21 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 22 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Neither of these considerations is dispositive 23 and instead must be viewed together. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 24 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

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).

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 1 Mr. Iqbal has not provided any information regarding his financial situation, the merits of the case, or his capacity to understand and defend himself from the claims asserted in this litigation. The only argument made in support of the request for court- appointed counsel is that Mr. Iqbal is in Canada and it would be difficult for him to manage counsel in Seattle, Washington. But that problem will persist regardless of whether Mr. Iqbal retains counsel or counsel is appointed by the Court.

Mr. Iqbal has not shown the sort of exceptional circumstances that justify appointment of counsel at the public’s expense. The motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of May, 2025.

A 17 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF