Rodolf v. Kieland, et al

Filing 67

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO PRO BONO PANEL ; request/motion noted for 7/10/09; pltf's motion to subpoena medical records held in abeyance by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. cc R Rodolf, S Haas (RS)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF REFERENCE ­ 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RICHARD C. RODOLF, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER KIELAND, et al., Defendant. NO. C08-475RSL ORDER OF REFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's letter to the Court, Dkt. #65. The Court construes this pro se plaintiff's letter as a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's request for counsel was previously denied by United States Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, Dkt. ## 18, 28, as plaintiff had demonstrated neither exceptional circumstances nor an inability to articulate his claims pro se, Dkt. # 18 at 1. Since that time, however, key defendants have lost on
summary judgment, Dkt. #55, and plaintiff's case has been scheduled for trial as a result, Dkt. #64. Plaintiff's latest request indicates that he feels ill-equipped to confront these latest developments without legal assistance. The Court hereby REFERS plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #65) to the Screening Committee of the Pro Bono Panel for review and consideration. The Court directs the Clerk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of Court to forward plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #65), plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. #15), Magistrate Judge Theiler's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Dkt. #47), the Court's Order adopting the R&R (Dkt. #55), the Court's Order denying plaintiff's motion to supplement (Dkt. #60), and the Court's Order setting trial date and related dates (Dkt. #64) to the Screening Committee. The Clerk shall note plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. #65) for July 10, 2009 pending the Screening Committee's recommendation as to whether the Court should appoint counsel. In addition, plaintiff's motion to subpoena medical records (Dkt. #58) will be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the Screening Committee's recommendation on plaintiff's request for counsel.1

DATED this 11th day of June, 2009.

A

Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

The Court is aware that plaintiff has filed a notice that he is withdrawing his motion to subpoena medical records, Dkt. #66. However, plaintiff indicated that his reason for withdrawing the motion is that he "do[es] not have enough time and resources to reply to [defendants'] response" before the note date, id. at 2, and stated that he will postpone the motion until he has "adequate resources at a later date," id. The Court therefore interprets plaintiff's withdrawal of his motion as a motion to continue. As the Court has held the motion to subpoena medical records in abeyance, the Court will not rule on plaintiff's motion to continue until after it hears back from the Screening Committee. ORDER OF REFERENCE ­ 2

1