Thomas v. State of Washington

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (DKTS. 15 AND 16 ) AND REQUEST (DKT. 18 ) signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff via USPS)(AE)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 GASKINS E. THOMAS, JR., 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, CASE NO. 2:17-cv-617-BAT ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (DKTS. 15 AND 16) AND REQUEST (DKT. 18) Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Gaskins E. Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed motions to permit retained counsel 13 to file discovery motions (Dkt. 15) and to have the amended complaint “aberrated” (Dkt. 16). 14 The Court requested Plaintiff to advise if he has retained counsel and to describe the scope of 15 counsel’s representation. Plaintiff was also asked to clarify what he meant by the term “aberate.” 16 Dkt. 17. In response, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting “the ablideration of the amended 17 complaint so that it can’t come back to hunt me in the long run.” Dkt. 18. He also asked for a 18 lawyer to represent him as he has not been able to retain counsel. Id. 19 Plaintiff’s requests regarding the “aberration” or “ablideration” of the amended complaint 20 are denied as moot. As Plaintiff was previously advised, the amended complaint was stricken at 21 the request of Plaintiff on June 2, 2017 (Dkt. 10) and this case is proceeding under plaintiff’s 22 original complaint (Dkt. 1) only. 23 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (DKTS. 15 AND 16) AND REQUEST (DKT. 18) - 1 1 Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is also denied. Generally, a person has 2 no right to counsel in a civil action. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 The Court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only 4 under “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 5 (9th Cir. 2004). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court 6 considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to 7 articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. 8 Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 9 Plaintiff has not been determined to be indigent or granted leave to proceed in forma 10 pauperis and paid to have his complaint filed. See Dkt. 1, Receipt # SEA084149. In addition, 11 the Court finds no exceptional circumstances existing at this time that would warrant the 12 appointment of counsel at the government’s expense. Plaintiff filed his complaint and thus far 13 has articulated his claims well, the issues are not complex, and there has been no showing as to 14 the likelihood of success on the merits at this time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 (1) Plaintiff’s motion/request for have the amended complaint aberrated (Dkt. 16) and 16 abliderated (Dkt. 18) are DENIED as moot. If it is Plaintiff’s intent to dismiss the complaint he 17 filed in this case, he should advise the Court and defendant by November 1, 2017. 18 19 (2) Plaintiff’s motion/request for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. 15) and (Dkt. 18) are DENIED. 20 (3) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties. 21 DATED this 20th day of October, 2017. 22 A 23 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (DKTS. 15 AND 16) AND REQUEST (DKT. 18) - 2

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?