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)

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