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)

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