Zamora v. Warner

Filing 11

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; striking as moot Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; striking Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Discovery, signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Isaac Zamora, Prisoner ID: 827534)(SWT) (cc: counsel for defendant via email)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 ISAAC LEE ZAMORA, Plaintiff, 9 Case No. C17-1007-RSL-JPD ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS 10 v. 11 JACK WARNER, Defendant. 12 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 applications for court-appointed counsel and for leave 16 to proceed in forma pauperis, and on plaintiff’s motion for discovery. The Court, having 17 reviewed plaintiff’s requests for relief, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS 18 as follows: 19 (1) Plaintiff’s application for court-appointed counsel (Dkt. 8) is DENIED. There is 20 no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the 21 Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in 22 forma pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 23 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS - 1 1 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); 2 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances 3 requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 4 plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 5 Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Plaintiff has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that, 6 7 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims pro se. 8 Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional circumstances which 9 warrant appointment of counsel at the present time. (2) 10 Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 9) is 11 STRICKEN as moot. Plaintiff filed a similar application at the outset of this case which was 12 granted by the Court on July 13, 2017. (See Dkt. 5.) The recently filed application is duplicative 13 and unnecessary. 14 (3) Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Dkt. 10) is STRICKEN. Though not entirely 15 clear, plaintiff appears to request in his motion that he be provided a number of documents which 16 he believes are necessary to support his claim. However, discovery requests should not be filed 17 with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (discovery requests are not to be filed until they are 18 either used in the proceeding or the court orders that they be filed). If plaintiff wishes to obtain 19 discovery materials in this matter, he should draft an appropriate discovery request and serve that 20 request directly on defendant. 21 // 22 // 23 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS - 2 1 2 3 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendant, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik. DATED this 16th day of August, 2017. A 4 5 JAMES P. DONOHUE Chief United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS - 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?