Blakely v. Jones et al

Filing 92

ORDER denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration to Appoint Counsel; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ralph Blakely, Prisoner ID: 817995)(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10
11
12

RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05021-RBL-TFL
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

GREGORY JONES, et al,
Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Ralph Howard Blakely’s timely

15

objection to Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for

16

appointment of counsel. Dkt. #89. The underlying complaint alleges claims for outrage and

17

violation of due process based on the seizure of Blakely’s legal documents. Dkt. #1.

18

On non-dispositive orders issued by a magistrate judge, a “district judge must consider

19

timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is contrary to law or clearly

20

erroneous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions,”

21

but “a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). The

23

court should consider both the litigant’s likelihood of success on the merits and their ability to

24
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER - 1

1

articulate their own legal claims in light of their complexity. Id. “Neither of these considerations

2

is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id.
Here, the Magistrate Judge denied Blakely’s motion on the basis that his claims are not

3
4

terribly complex, he has not proven himself incapable of articulating his own arguments, and he

5

has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Dkt. #86, at 2. In his objections, Blakely

6

largely reiterates his prior arguments about being physically incapacitated and out-matched by

7

the attorney general’s office. Dkt. #89. He also insists that he is being wrongly incarcerated and

8

denied medical services. Id. However, none of these allegations are sufficient to show that the

9

Magistrate Judge’s conclusions were contrary to law or clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

10
11
12
13

59(a).
The Court will not overrule or otherwise alter the Magistrate Judge’s decision on the
strength of Petitioner’s filing. The Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated this 14th day of May, 2019.

16
17

A

18

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

19

20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER - 2