District Court, W.D. Washington, 2025

Darrel Lorne Harris v. Washington State Department of Corrections, et al.

Darrel Lorne Harris v. Washington State Department of Corrections, et al.
District Court, W.D. Washington · Decided November 12, 2025
Darrel Lorne Harris v. Washington State Department of Corrections, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DARREL LORNE HARRIS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05665-KKE-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, DKT. 22 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendant.

On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 22.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Adir Int’l, LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab.

Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1038–39 (9th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). However, in exceptional circumstances the Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 17 1915(e)(1). Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). To determine if exceptional circumstances exist, a court considers the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims in view of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Id. Neither factor is dispositive, and both are evaluated together. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint on July 28, 2025 alleging he injured his finger, and defendants violated his rights by failing to provide adequate medical treatment. The claim is not complex, and plaintiff has shown adequately ability to presents his claims, including filing motions to amend his complaint, motions to compel and the filing of an amended complaint. In his motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff avers he called some attorneys but was unable to leave any message and there are no reasons to believe his allegations against defendants are untrue. The Court finds based upon the foregoing that this is not a case in which exceptional circumstances compel appointment of counsel.

7 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 22, is DENIED.

9 2. The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff and defense counsel.

10 DATED this 12th day of November, 2025.

11 A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.