United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff Martha Wangari's fourth motion for court-appointed counsel. Dkt. # 49. On August 24, 2012, in response to plaintiff's first motion to appoint counsel, the court referred plaintiff's motion to the pro bono screening committee. Dkt. # 10. The screening committee recommended appointment of counsel, but the court was unable to locate counsel who would agree to represent plaintiff throughout the entirety of her case. However, the court believed that the interest of justice would be served if pro bono counsel was appointed for the limited purpose of conducting early ADR procedure, and appointed counsel for that purpose. Dkt. ## 11-12. Mediation was ultimately unsuccessful, and the court terminated pro bono counsel's representation. Dkt. # 23.
On June 5, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's second request for pro bono counsel because the court was previously unable to locate counsel to represent plaintiff for the entirety of her case, and early ADR proceedings with representation of counsel was unsuccessful. Dkt. # 29. The court made the same finding on Ms. Wangari's third request. Dkt. # 39. On February 6, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's request for a continuance to obtain an attorney. Dkt. # 44. In all of plaintiff's requests for attorney, she has not once explained her efforts to obtain counsel and over what period of time. The court is not seeking any communications she has had with counsel, only an explanation of her efforts to obtain counsel. In the pending motion, she has listed names and numbers of various attorneys that she has contacted, but fails to follow the directions to explain her efforts in contacting these individuals and over what period of time. Additionally, Ms. Wangari has not explained how circumstances have changed since the court appointed pro bono counsel, which ultimately led to an unsuccessful mediation.
The court understands that Ms. Wangari's deposition is scheduled for February 18, 2014. Failure to appear for a deposition or otherwise respond to legitimate discovery requests may result in consequences adverse to plaintiff's case, including monetary sanctions, dismissal of her case, and/or attorney's fees for any motions to compel that defendant may file to compel her attendance. Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 11. Waiting for the court to rule on a pending motion, particularly where the court has previously denied such requests several times, is not a legitimate reason to fail to appear at a deposition.
The court again refers plaintiff to the court's website that includes, among other things, a pro se guide. See http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/pro-se. Also available on the court's website is a link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local Rules. See http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/local-rules-and-orders.
For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's fourth motion for court-appointed counsel is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail ...