Scheidler v. Avery et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; granting 17 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

12

ORDER

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. 12-cv-5996-RBL

WILLIAM SCHEIDLER,

(Dkt. #8, 9, 17, 20)

v.
JAMER AVERY, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

INTRODUCTION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff William Scheidler, appearing pro se, alleges violations of numerous criminal
statutes, constitutional rights, and common law duties arising out of certain actions by the Board
of Tax Appeals, a Kitsap County prosecutor, judge, and the county assessor. (A list can be found
in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 8.) Defendants removed the case and have moved to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiff has moved for remand and requested counsel.
A. Motion to Remand
Given the numerous constitutional claims, the Court has federal question jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. #9) is DENIED.
B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel. Under § 1915, the Court may appoint counsel in exceptional
circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional
circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

Order - 1

1

the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

2

involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

3

Here, Plaintiff has not established exceptional circumstances.

4

C. Motions to Dismiss

5

Even construing the Complaint liberally, the Court must conclude that it fails to state a

6

claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff alleges a lengthy list of criminal and

7

constitutional violations, yet provides no intelligible factual explanation of his claims. No

8

Defendant could reasonably answer such a Complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff appears to be

9

suing a Kitsap County Prosecutor, a Judge, and the county Assessor for actions taken in a

10

superior court case. This Court does not sit in review of state court decisions, and the claims are

11

untenable.

12
13

CONCLUSION
After review of all pleadings, motions, and supporting documents, the Court GRANTS

14

Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkts. #8, 17). Plaintiff’s motions for remand and for

15

appointment of counsel (Dkts. #9, 20) are DENIED. Because Plaintiff cannot amend his

16

Complaint to allow this Court to review state court proceedings, leave to amend is DENIED.

17

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

18
19
20

Dated this 29th day of January 2013.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

Order - 2