Ejonga-Deogracias v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time - Plaintiff may have until 4/9/18 to file a second amended complaint; denying 65 Motion to Appoint Counsel; and denying 71 Motion to Stay. **SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS** Signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke.**4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(JoJo Ejonga-Deogracias, Prisoner ID: 366372)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 6 JOJO EJONGA-DEOGRACIAS, Case No. C15-5784-RJB-TLF 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET. AL., ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT Defendants. 11 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 12 Theresa L. Fricke. Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time to File 13 2nd Amended Complaint” (Dkt. 63), “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Dkt. 65), and 14 “Motion to Stay While Appeal is Pending in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals” (Dkt. 71). 15 On August 11, 2017, defendant Donald Holbrook filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s 16 complaint as against him. Dkt. 50. On November 2, 2017, the undersigned issued a Report and 17 Recommendation recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as against defendant 18 Holbrook. Dkt. 60. On November 27, 2017, District Judge Robert J. Bryan issued an order 19 adopting the Report and Recommendation to the extent that it recommended dismissal of the 20 claims asserted against defendant Holbrook but provided that plaintiff, if he chooses, may file a 21 second amended complaint on or before December 15, 2017. Dkt. 62. On December 6, 2017, 22 plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Bryan’s order (Dkt. 64), a “Motion for Extension of 23 Time to File 2nd Amended Complaint,” (Dkt. 63) and a “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” 24 25 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT - 1 1 (Dkt. 65). On January 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Stay While Appeal is Pending in 2 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” Dkt. 71. The Court will address each motion in turn. 3 I. Motion to Appoint Counsel 4 Plaintiff moves for an order appointing counsel. Dkt. 65. Plaintiff states that he is unable 5 to afford counsel and due to the complexity and number of defendants named in the suit he has a 6 limited ability to identify the liable defendants’ names and addresses. Id. Plaintiff asserts that 7 counsel will be able to identify specific persons or people liable and the level of liability which 8 will require further investigation. Id. He further indicates that he believes medical expert 9 testimony will be necessary to testify to the effects of his alleged injuries and mental health 10 history and that cross-examination of witnesses may be required, and that counsel will be able to 11 distinguish the “issue of question and how it applie [sic] to each defendant.” Id. 12 No constitutional right exists to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. 13 Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. 14 Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is 15 discretionary, not mandatory.”). In “exceptional circumstances,” a district court may appoint 16 counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 17 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis 18 supplied.) To decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the 19 likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro 20 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 21 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff 22 must plead facts that show he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issue involved, and 23 an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his claim. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 24 25 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT - 2 1 America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Although a pro se litigant may be better served 2 with the assistance of counsel, being better served by a lawyer as opposed to being a pro se 3 litigant is not the legal criteria. See Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331; Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 4 The Court finds that plaintiff’s alleged reasons do not constitute exceptional 5 circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s pleadings appear to demonstrate 6 an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. Although plaintiff asserts the issues in this 7 case are “complex”, he has not demonstrated as such but, rather, his complaint appears to 8 articulate relatively straight-forward claims of alleged Due Process and Eighth Amendment 9 violations. Plaintiff claims he requires counsel to assist him in identifying and locating various 10 defendants. However, plaintiff makes no effort to explain what efforts, if any, he has made to 11 identify or locate the individuals he names or seeks to name as defendants. The fact that plaintiff 12 believes prosecution of this case would be easier with the assistance of counsel does not establish 13 an exceptional circumstance that would justify appointing counsel in this case. See Wilborn, 789 14 F.2d at 1331. Furthermore, plaintiff has also not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. 15 16 17 Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 5) is denied. II. Motion for Extension of Time Plaintiff states he needs additional time to conduct research and requests an extension of 18 60 days. Id. Defendant does not oppose the extension. Dkt. 68. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is 19 granted to the extent that he may have until April 9, 2018, to file a second amended complaint. 20 However, the Court also notes that defendant Bill Hamby has not yet been served in this 21 case and that the Attorney General’s Office has notified the Court that Mr. Hamby has retired 22 and no longer works for the Department of Corrections or the State of Washington. Dkt. 48. 23 Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff includes Bill Hamby as a defendant in his second amended 24 25 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT - 3 1 complaint, he is directed to provide the Court with a last known address for Mr. Hamby so that 2 service may be properly effected. 3 4 III. Motion to Stay While Appeal is Pending Plaintiff moves to stay all proceedings while his appeal of Judge Bryan’s order is 5 pending. Dkt. 71. Plaintiff requests that all proceedings be stayed pending a decision on his 6 appeal. Id. On January 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s 7 appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint 8 (Dkt. 62) was not final or appealable. Dkt. 73. In light of the Court of Appeals Order dismissing 9 plaintiff’s appeal, there is no appeal currently pending. Mr. Ejonga-Deogracias’ motion to stay 10 (Dkt. 71) is therefore denied as moot. 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 12 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 65) is DENIED. 13 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 63) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may have 14 until April 9, 2018, to file a second amended complaint. To the extent plaintiff 15 includes Bill Hamby as a defendant in his second amended complaint, he is directed 16 to provide the Court with a last known address for Mr. Hamby. 17 (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay While Appeal is Pending (Dkt. 71) is DENIED as moot. 18 Dated this 7th day of February, 2018. 19 20 21 A 22 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT - 4

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?