United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil rights action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter comes before the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 8 and 9) are DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that there is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under Bivens. Although the Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). 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 his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.
Plaintiff has not, at this juncture, demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that, in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims pro se. Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves ...