Roberts v. Snohomish County et al

Filing 135

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 124 Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt; denying Plaintiff's 129 Motion to Appoint Counsel under the Americans with Disabilities Act, signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Joe Roberts, Prisoner ID: 394089)(SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 JOE J.W. ROBERTS, JR., Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No. C16-1464-TSZ-JPD v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL 13 14 This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before 15 the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion to hold defendants in contempt for lying under 16 oath and on plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 17 Defendants have filed responses to both motions. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s 18 motions, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to hold defendants in contempt for lying under oath (Dkt. 124) 20 is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion is somewhat difficult to understand, but he appears to suggest 21 that defendants should be held in contempt because they have submitted documents in this action 22 which are contrary to the version of events which plaintiff has set forth in his various pleadings. 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT - 1 1 Plaintiff does not identify specific excerpts from the documents which he believes are inaccurate 2 or objectionable, nor does he offer any evidence of perjury. Plaintiff’s motion simply lacks 3 sufficient specificity to demonstrate any entitlement to relief, and the motion must therefore be 4 denied. 5 (2) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel under the Americans with 6 Disabilities Act (Dkt. 129) is DENIED. Plaintiff has asked the Court to appoint counsel multiple 7 times during the pendency of this action, and on each occasion plaintiff’s request for counsel has 8 been denied. (See Dkts. 14, 51, 63, 96, 110.) Plaintiff now argues that he is entitled to 9 appointment of counsel under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) because 10 he has been diagnosed with various mental disorders which preclude him from effectively 11 litigating this action. However, plaintiff makes no showing that the ADA applies in this 12 context.1 Moreover, the Court his previously considered, and rejected, plaintiff’s argument that 13 his alleged mental health disabilities warrant the appointment of counsel, and nothing in the 14 instant motion demonstrates that the Court’s prior ruling was erroneous. (See Dkts. 91, 96, 110.) 15 Finally, the Court notes that it has now issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter 16 recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. It is thus the view of 17 this Court that plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. In sum, plaintiff has 18 not demonstrated that his case involves exceptional circumstances which warrant the 19 appointment of counsel, and the instant motion must therefore be denied. 20 21 1 22 23 Title II of the ADA applies to all services, programs and activities of public entities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131. However, the definition of public entity does not include the federal government. Id. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendant, and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. DATED this 12th day of February, 2018. A JAMES P. DONOHUE Chief United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?