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)
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?