Troupe v. Washington State Penitentiary et al

Filing 168

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY, MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, MOTION FOR TRO EMERGENCY, MOTION TO COMPEL WSP AGAIN - denying as moot 155 Motion to Clarify; denying 155 Motion to Expedite; denying 156 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 156 Motion to Appoint Expert; denying as moot 157 Motion for TRO; denying 157 Motion to Expedite; denying 161 Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)**4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8

No.

DAVID TROUPE,

9

13-CV-5038-EFS

Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO CLARIFY, MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL, MOTION FOR TRO
EMERGENCY, MOTION TO COMPEL WSP
AGAIN

v.
KATRINA SUCKOW, ET AL.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

Before the Court are Plaintiff David Troupe's Motion to Clarify,

15

ECF No. 155, Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 156, Motion for TRO

16

Emergency, ECF No. 157, and Motion to Compel WSP Again, ECF No. 161.

17

I.

Motion to Clarify, ECF No. 155

18

Plaintiff asks the Court to clarify the rules of discovery. In

19

particular, Plaintiff asks the Court how many interrogatories he is

20

allowed to serve on the Defendants. The Court has already explained

21

the rules regarding interrogatories to the Plaintiff in a prior order.

22

See ECF No. 100 at 2. The Court will not go through all of the rules

23

again. It is sufficient to point out that the Court’s scheduling order

24

set an April 17, 2015 discovery deadline. ECF No. 63. Discovery was

25

completed

26

ORDER - 1

in

this

case

months

ago.

As

such,

the

Court

denies

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify as moot. Plaintiff is not entitled to

2

any more interrogatories in this case.

3

II.

Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 156

4

Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel for him now that his

5

claim has survived summary judgment. ECF No. 156. Pursuant to 28

6

U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint counsel for a litigant in a

7

civil

8

circumstances.”

9

1991) (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon,789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

case.

In

However,

a

court

may

only

do

so

under

“exceptional

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

10

1986)).

determining

whether

exceptional

circumstances

exist,

a

11

court evaluates “both the likelihood of success on the merits and the

12

ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of

13

the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. Here, the Court

14

finds that no “exceptional circumstances” exist which would warrant

15

the appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint

16

Counsel is denied.

17

III. Motion for TRO Emergency, ECF No. 157

18

Plaintiff claims that after the Court denied in part Defendants’

19

Motion for Summary Judgment, a number of corrections officers at the

20

Washington State Penitentiary have threatened to kill him, provided

21

him with sharp weapons, removed his legal materials from his cell, and

22

have not properly handled his electronic case filings. ECF No. 157. He

23

requests that the Court order various individuals at the penitentiary

24

to stop engaging in this sort of activity. In particular, Plaintiff

25

asks the Court to order the Department of Corrections to “find another

26

facility to house Troupe with his property within seven days.” Id.

ORDER - 2

1

On October 23, 2015, the Court received a notice from Mr. Troupe

2

indicating that he was scheduled to be moved to a different facility.

3

ECF No. 165. He is to be moved to a facility in Shelton, Washington.

4

Id. As a result, he will no longer be in contact with any of the

5

officers. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO Emergency is denied as

6

moot. However, The Court has previously indicated that it would not

7

let a transfer to a different facility interfere with Plaintiff’s

8

ability to prosecute this matter. The Court will monitor the transfer

9

and make sure that Plaintiff is not prejudiced as a result.

10

IV.

Motion to Compel WSP Again, ECF No. 161

11

Finally, Plaintiff again asks the Court to compel the Washington

12

State Penitentiary to fix its legal phones. ECF No. 161. This is the

13

same

14

Brodhead, 13-CV-5028-EFS. As stated in that case, the Court will not

15

hear motions that do not pertain to the issues of the case. See Troupe

16

v. Brodhead, 13-CV-5028-EFS, ECF No. 248. This case is not about the

17

phones at the penitentiary. The Court will only intervene if the

18

phones

19

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel WSP Again, as

20

irrelevant.

motion

that

interfere

Plaintiff

with

filed

Plaintiff’s

in

another

ability

to

case.

See

litigate

Troupe

this

v.

case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

21
22

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify, ECF No. 155, is DENIED as moot.

23

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 156, is DENIED.

24

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO Emergency, ECF No. 157, is DENIED as
moot.

25
26

//

ORDER - 3

1
2
3
4

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel WSP Again, ECF No. 161, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to counsel and Mr. Troupe.
DATED this

2nd

day of November 2015.

5
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2013\5038.TROUPE.ord.mots.lc2.docx

ORDER - 4