Carr v. Herrington

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 21 EXTENSION AND DENYING REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, signed by Judge Theresa L Fricke. The Court grants an extension of 90 days. Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be filed on or before July 26, 2021. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Peter Carr, Prisoner ID: 357101)(KMC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

PETER JAMES CARR,

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

v.

Plaintiff,

RYAN HERRINGTON,

Case No. 3:20-cv-05794-BHS-TLF
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
AND DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for an extension and for
appointment of counsel. Dkts. 21, 22.
The Court previously declined to serve Plaintiff’s complaint but gave him leave to

14

file an amended complaint. Dkt. 7. The Court has granted two extensions of this

15

deadline, due to ongoing COVID-19 related lockdowns and restrictions at the facility at

16

which Plaintiff is confined that have restricted Plaintiff’s access to the law library. Dkt.

17

14, 19. Plaintiff has requested a further extension, stating that the facility-wide

18

restrictions and lockdowns have continued and prevented Plaintiff’s access to the law

19

library or legal materials needed to prepare his amended complaint. Dkts. 21, 22. The

20

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension. Plaintiff has not stated the length of

21

the extension he seeks; the Court grants an extension of 90 days. Plaintiff’s amended

22

complaint shall be filed on or before July 26, 2021.

23
24
25
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 1

1

Plaintiff’s motion also repeats his request for appointment of counsel, which the

2

Court twice denied. Dkts. 14, 19. Counsel may be appointed in Section 1983 actions

3

only in exceptional circumstances, which depend upon “the likelihood of success on the

4

merits [and] the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

5

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

6

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). As the

7

Court previously determined in denying Plaintiff’s first request for counsel, these factors

8

do not support the appointment of counsel at this time.

9

Plaintiff contends that his difficulty accessing the law library and legal materials

10

constitute extraordinary circumstances, and he has expressed frustration with delays in

11

this case. Dkt. 22. But the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed unusual shutdowns

12

throughout the legal system and the prisons. The pandemic-related challenges Plaintiff

13

is experiencing are no different from those faced by every other pro se litigant during

14

these challenging times. This case does not pose uniquely complex issues or present

15

circumstances that set it apart from other pro se cases; plaintiff’s likelihood of success

16

cannot be accurately assessed in the absence of a viable complaint, and plaintiff has

17

demonstrated he is capable of articulating his claims. Plaintiff’s request for the

18

appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.

19

Dated this 27th day of April, 2021.

20

A

21
22

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL - 2