Ross v. Does

Filing 71

ORDER denying 65 Motion to allow inmate advisor, signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(William Ross, Prisoner ID: 287536)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05469-RJB-TLF

WILLIAM W. ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALLOW INMATE
ADVISOR

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Inmate Advisor.
The Court has considered Defendants’ Response and the remainder of the file herein. Dkt. 67.
Plaintiff seeks relief to allow a fellow inmate to accompany him as an advisor to the
November 7, 2017 hearing “as well as any subsequent proceedings.” Dkt. 65 at 1. According to
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has “limited knowledge of the law, lack of education, special needs, and
probable TBI (traumatic brain injury),” whereas a fellow inmate “is better able to frame, review,
understand and articulate” Plaintiff’s positions. Id.

24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW INMATE ADVISOR - 1

1

Defendants argue that the motion is moot, because the November 7, 2017 hearing has

2

passed. Dkt. 67 at 1. To the extent the motion is not moot, Defendants continue, (1) no other

3

hearings are currently set, and such settings are rare, and (2) the State of Washington prohibits

4

the advice or representation sought by Plaintiff, because non-attorneys cannot represent or

5

provide legal advice. Dkt. 67 at 2.

6

Defendants are correct. Plaintiff’s motion is moot as to the November 7, 2017 hearing,

7

and although trial will be set if this case proceeds past dispositive motions, at present there are no

8

other hearings set. The only current setting is the December 22, 2017 noting date for

9

consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 45). The Court typically considers

10

Reports and Recommendations without oral argument, and at present the Court does not

11

anticipate any departure from its general practice in this case. Defendants are also correct that

12

non-attorneys cannot represent Plaintiff in front of this Court, and Plaintiff has made no showing

13

that the inmate is a licensed attorney. Even if oral argument were currently set, allowing another

14

inmate to advise Plaintiff at such a hearing would not be permissible.

15

Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Inmate Advisor (Dkt. 67) is HEREBY DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

18
19
20
21
22

to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 29th day of November, 2017.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

23
24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALLOW INMATE ADVISOR - 2