Opinion
No. 13-cv-5551-RBL
07-22-2013
DANIEL WINN, Plaintiff, v. GRAND JURY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Defendant.
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
Order Denying IFP Status and Motion to
Appoint Counsel
[Dkts. #1, 2]
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniel Winn's application to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. #1] and application for appointment of counsel [Dkt. #2]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the applications.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
A 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). The court has broad discretion in resolving the application, but "the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in civil actions for damages should be sparingly granted." Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Moreover, a court should "deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit." Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if "it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact." Id. (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
Here, the Court must deny Plaintiff's application because the Complaint, barely legible, appears frivolous on its face. The nature of the claim is entirely unclear, and it appears likely that any attempt to sue Plaintiff's prosecutor in his personal capacity would be barred by prosecutorial immunity.
B. Application for Appointment of Counsel.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. Under § 1915, the Court may appoint counsel 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 Cir. 1983).
As noted above, Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits at this time. Thus, the Court must decline to appoint counsel.
III. ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #1] and the application to appoint counsel [Dkt. #2]. Plaintiff has 15 days to pay the filing fees or the case may be dismissed.
_________________
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE