Coleman v. Merritt et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 24 Second Motion for Counsel. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 24 is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. (KRA) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 TRAVIS CLINTON COLEMAN , 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01566-JCC-BAT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 24. v. C. MERRITT, et al., Defendant. Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel, requesting the Court 14 appoint counsel on the grounds (1) his jail custody limits his ability to litigate his case; (2) his 15 case is complex and he has limited law library access; (3) a lawyer could more effectively 16 present his case; (4) no lawyer has agreed to represent plaintiff; and (5) he has no idea of how to 17 admit certain evidence. Dkt. 24. 18 As the Court indicated in its first order denying appointment of counsel, Plaintiff’s case 19 does not involve exceptional circumstances in that Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims; 20 and his claims are straightforward—he alleges Defendants assaulted and injured him and he was 21 denied medical care for the injuries he suffered. Plaintiff has thus far been able to articulate and 22 litigate his case, and the reasons he gives for appointment of counsel apply in virtually every 23 case brought by a person in detention and are thus common not exceptional. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 24. - 1 1 The Court accordingly ORDERS: 2 (1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 24 is DENIED. 3 (2) The Clerk shall provide copies of this order to the parties. 4 DATED this 9th day of December, 2024. 5 A 6 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 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 SECOND MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 24. - 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?