United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DENYING APPLICATION FOR COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL,
AND DIRECTING SERVICE
J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Application
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)
(Dkt. 1) and Application for Court Appointed Counsel (Dkt.
1-2). The Court has considered the applications and the
remainder of the record herein.
August 30, 2017, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed
this case, moved for IFP, and provided a proposed complaint
asserting that Defendant EBay, Inc. committed copyright
infringement, breached a contract, and committed fraud when
it sold Plaintiff's books. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief and several million dollars in damages.
Id. Plaintiff also filed an application for the
Court to appoint him counsel. Dkt. 1-2. In addition to this
case, Plaintiff filed Google.com, et al., Western
District of Washington case number 17-5686 RJB.
APPLICATION. The district court may permit indigent
litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a
proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying
an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v.
Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963),
cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963).
states that he is not employed, is totally disabled, and
receives Social Security Disability Income of $738.00/month.
Dkt. 1. He reports he has expenses of $625. Id.
Plaintiff indicates that he has no assets or dependents.
Id. He is incarcerated. Id. Plaintiff
completed the application and has made a sufficient showing
of indigence. His IFP application (Dkt. 1) should be granted.
FOR COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), the court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel. Under Section 1915, the
court may appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.
1984). To find exceptional circumstances, the court must
evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the
ability of the petitioner to articulate the claims pro
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th
the case with Plaintiff's application for appointment of
counsel in Casterlow-Bey v. Google.com, et al.,
Western District of Washington case number 17-5686 RJB, the
Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 1-2)
should be denied. The Plaintiff has not shown that the claims
have merit or a likelihood of success on the merits. Further,
he appears to be able to articulate his claims adequately in
light of the legal issues involved. The case does not present
exceptional circumstances. The motion for appointment of
counsel (Dkt. 1-2) should be denied.
OF THE COMPLAINT. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 (c)(3), where
a party has been granted IFP status under § 1915, the
court must order that service of the complaint be made
“by a United States Marshal, deputy marshal or by a
person specially appointed by the court.” Plaintiff has
submitted a summons form. Dkt. 1-4.
Service by Clerk
Clerk is directed to send the following to Defendant by U.S.
mail at the address provided in the summons filled out by
Plaintiff (Dkt. 1-4): copies of Plaintiff s Complaint, this
Order, the notice of lawsuit, and request for waiver of
service of summons, and a waiver of service of summons.
Defendant shall have thirty (30) days within which to return
the enclosed waiver of service of summons. A defendant who
timely returns the signed waiver shall have sixty (60) days
after the date designated on the notice of lawsuit to file
and serve an answer to the Complaint or a motion permitted
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.
defendant who fails to timely return the signed waiver will
be personally served with a summons and complaint, and may be
required to pay the full costs of such service, pursuant to
Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A
defendant who has been personally served shall file an ...