Slaughter v. Glebe et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 56 Motion to Compel; denying 57 Motion to Appoint 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

OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL

v.

13

PAT GLEBE, et al.,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05484-BHS-JRC

Defendants.
The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court’s authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.
Before the Court are two motions filed by plaintiff: (1) motion to compel (Dkt. 56) and
(2) motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 57). Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied because plaintiff
has not served defendants with any discovery requests prior to filing his motion. Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel is denied because plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to articulate his
claims without an attorney and there are no exceptional circumstances compelling the Court to
appoint counsel at this time.

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1

1

1. Motion to Compel (Dkt. 56)

2

Plaintiff filed his “motion of discovery request and production of documents” on

3 December 4, 2015. Dkt. 56. Plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants to respond to
4 discovery requests. Id. In response, defendants’ counsel declares that to date, she has not
5 received any discovery requests from plaintiff. Dkt. 63, Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Katherine
6 Faber).
7

Plaintiff is required to serve discovery requests directly on other parties. See generally,

8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33, 34. The Court is generally not involved in discovery until and unless the
9 parties are not able to resolve discovery disputes, and after the parties have conferred or
10 attempted to confer.
11
12
13
14

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1):
. . . On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may
move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion
must include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to
make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court
action.

15
The declaration submitted by counsel for defendants shows that plaintiff has failed to
16
serve any discovery requests. Dkt. 63, Exhibit 1. Plaintiff has not submitted any information to
17
the contrary. If there were no discovery requests, there is no basis for a motion to compel. See
18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.
19
2. Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 57)
20
No constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v.
21
Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.
22
Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is
23
discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 2

1 appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28
2 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
3 grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the
4 Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the
5 [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”
6 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718
7 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp
8 of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of
9 his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
10

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel contains no reasons supporting his need for court

11 appointed counsel. Dkt. 57. The Court notes his case does not involve complex facts or law, and
12 plaintiff has not shown an inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in a fashion
13 understandable to the Court. Plaintiff has also not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits of
14 his case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is denied.
15

Dated this 28th day of December, 2015.

A

16
17

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 3