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)

Download PDF
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

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?