Hahn v. Waddington et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 33 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Aaron Hahn, denying 34 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Aaron Hahn.Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) Paper copy sent to plaintiff @ Walla Walla address . Modified on 1/6/2015 (JL).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 AARON HAHN, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. DOUG WADDINGTON, et al., Defendants. 15 16 CASE NO. 14-5047 RJB/KLS This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 17 (Dkt. 43) and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 32). 18 The Court has considered the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 43), the Report and 19 Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 33), 20 Defendants’ Response to the Objections (Dkt. 35), and remaining record. 21 In this civil rights case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to 22 his mental health when they sent him to the Washington State Penitentiary and failed to protect 23 him from and an inmate on inmate assault. Dkt. 19. 24 ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1 1 The Report and Recommendation recommends dismissal of the case because the statute 2 of limitations prevents consideration of the claims and Plaintiff has made no showing that he is 3 entitled to equitable tolling. Dkt. 32. Plaintiff filed Objections (Dkt. 33) and the Defendants 4 responded to those objections (Dkt. 35). After the Report and Recommendation was filed, 5 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 34. 6 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may 7 request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. Under Section 1915, the 8 court may appoint counsel in exceptional circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 9 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood 10 of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate the claims pro se in light of 11 the complexity of the legal issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 12 1983). 13 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment counsel (Dkt. 34) should be denied. Plaintiff has not 14 shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff has not shown he is unable to articulate 15 the instant case’s claim pro se. He is able to state his positions adequately and raise issues to the 16 court. His motion should be denied. 17 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons provided therein, the Report and 18 Recommendation (Dkt. 32) should be adopted and the case dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s 19 objections are addressed in the Report and Recommendation and do not provide a basis for 20 rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s argument, that he is entitled 21 to tolling, is without merit. As stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has not 22 shown that his failure to comply with the statute of limitations was caused by bad faith, 23 24 ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2 1 deception, or false assurances by the Defendants. His claims should be dismissed because they 2 are barred by the statute of limitations. 3 It is ORDERED that: 4  Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 34) IS DENIED; 5  The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 32) IS ADOPTED; and 6  The case IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 7 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to U.S. Magistrate Karen L. 8 Strombom, all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known 9 address. 10 Dated this 6th day of January 2015. 11 A 12 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3

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?