Opinion
CASE NO C02-2453C
January 7, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiff is a Washington state prisoner who brings this prose civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he has been unlawfully denied access to certain legal documents and that King County has failed to prove that it has jurisdiction over him Plaintiff names as defendants. a) King County prosecutor Norm Maleng, b) King County, and c) John and Jane Doe(s) Currently before the Court is plaintiffs motion for a change of venue to the Eastern District of Washington (Dkt #3), motion to transport plaintiff to the Western District of Washington in Yakima (Dkt #4), and motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt #5)
I. Motion for Change of Venue to the Eastern District of Washington
Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington However, the Court in the Eastern District transferred the action to this Court since plaintiffs claims arose in this district and defendants are located here. Plaintiff now asks that the action be returned to the Eastern District. In support of this motion, plaintiff argues that he cannot receive a fair and impartial decision in the Western District since King County and the King County prosecutor are defendants Plaintiff further argues that, due to Mr. Maleng's influence, this action will prejudice plaintiff in future Western District actions. Finally, plaintiff states that he resides within the Eastern District, and presenting his case here imposes a hardship upon him
For the convenience of parties and in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it may have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1404. A district court is vested with wide discretion in determining whether to transfer a case Arley v. United Pac Ins Co, 379 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir 1967). Here, because the alleged violations took place in the Western District, and because the majority of the parties reside in the Western District, it was reasonable to transfer the action here The fact that plaintiff resides within the Eastern District does not disturb the court's clear discretion in transferring a case. Moreover, plaintiff is incarcerated, and therefore his proximity to the Eastern District versus the Western District is of little consequence Finally, this
action has been filed in the federal court system rather than the King County court system, and the identity of defendants will not improperly influence this Court's decision.
II Motion to Transport Plaintiff to the Western District in Yakima
Plaintiff also asks to be transported to the district court in the "Western District Of Washington at Yakima, Washington" so that he may "be present during the entire hearing/jury trial." However, the district court in Yakima falls within the Eastern, rather than Western, District of Washington, and this Court stated above that it will not disturb the Eastern District's decision to transfer the case Moreover, in the event that plaintiffs action results in a hearing or jury trial, plaintiff will be transported to the Court as necessary.
III. Motion for Appointment Counsel
Finally, plaintiff requests court-appointed counsel, arguing that his case involves complex issues, that he is unschooled in the practice of law, and that jury selection must be performed by one who is trained in the law
There is no right to court-appointed counsel in cases brought under 42 U S.C. § 1983 However, this Court has the discretion to designate counsel for a plaintiff proceeding in forma paupers in exceptional circumstances. 28 U S C. § 1915(e)(1); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir 1986) A review of the record reveals that plaintiff is not eligible for appointment of counsel, as he has not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action Plaintiff paid the filing fee to initiate this action and has made no subsequent showing of indigency to qualify him for appointment of counsel.
Even assuming plaintiff had made a satisfactory showing of indigency, he fails to demonstrate that appointment of counsel is warranted in this matter. The Court may appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 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 involvedId Plaintiff has neither 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 exceptional circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Nevertheless, plaintiff is advised that he is free to retain an attorney or an attorney may agree to represent him pro bono.
IV Conclusion
For the above reasons, plaintiff's motion for change of venue (Dkt #3), motion to transport plaintiff (Dkt #4), and motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #5) are DENIED. The Clerk shall direct copies of this order to plaintiff and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.