Jones v. Special Commitment Center et al
Filing
54
ORDER granting 52 Motion to Waive Court Appointment of Counsel signed by Judge J Richard Creatura.(MET) cc: plaintiff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
8
9
10
JAMES EDWARD JONES,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER, et.
al.,
CASE NO. C14-5018 JRC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
WAIVE COURT APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
14
Defendants.
15
16
The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to the
17
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B), Fed. R. Civ. P.
18
72, and Local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.
19
On May 11, 2016, the Court provided in its Order Granting Motion For Jury Trial and
20
Setting Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule that plaintiff may move for the Court to appoint counsel
21
on or before June 3, 2016. Dkt. 51 at 3.
22
On May 31, 2016, plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Motion to
23
Expressly Waive Court Appointment of Counsel and to Represent as Pro Se Litigant (“Motion”).
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WAIVE
COURT APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1
1 Dkt. 52. Plaintiff asserts that he has submitted discovery, exhibits, and briefs which were
2 comprehensive and focused. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further states he has demonstrated that he will
3 prevail at trial and the case is not so complex to require an attorney be appointed to represent his
4 interests. Id. The defendants have responded to the Motion and take no position. Dkt. 53.
5
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. In the
6 event plaintiff changes his mind or demonstrates that he is unable to represent himself
7 adequately, the Court may revisit this issue.
8
9
Dated this 20th day of July, 2016.
10
A
11
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WAIVE
COURT APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 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?