United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ROY V. RANDALL, SR, Plaintiff,
NICK PARODI; KACY JONES, also known as KACI JONES; HILLARY BRYANT; LYNN GOERR; and FULCRUM REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs October 26, 2017
pleading entitled "Combined Joint Status Report."
Dkt. 14. The Court has considered the pleading and remaining
file, and is fully advised.
5, 2017, Plaintiff Roy Randal filed, pro se, a civil
action against the individually named Defendants: Nick
Parodi, Kacy Jones, Hillary Bryant, and Lynn Goerr. Dkt. 1-1.
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, ("IFP"), which was granted. Dkts. 1
and 4. On August 3, 2017, this case was consolidated with
Randal v. Fulcrum Real Estate Services, Inc.,
Western District of Washington case number 17-5570
RJB. Dkt. 8.
FACTS AND FURTHER PROCEDURAL HISTORY
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
complaint alleges that since April of 2015, he requested the
"reasonable accommodation" of "unfettered
access" to get his bicycle to his basement apartment.
Dkt. 5, at 2. He states that he had that access in his third
floor apartment. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
"the only accommodation that would allow unfettered
access is a key to the elevator allowing access to the
basement apartment." Id. Plaintiff states that
each of the Defendants have "refused [his] reasonable
accommodations." Id. Plaintiffs complaint
references "Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
" § "8046" and "80463B."
Id. As relief, Plaintiff states that he seeks: (1) a
key to the elevator, (2) pain and suffering for having to
carry his belongings by hand because he did not have access
to his bike, (3) "appropriate punishment for denial of
[his] reasonable accommodation for the two years plus, "
(4) Defendants cease all efforts to evict him, and (5)
training for Defendants. Id.
FURTHER PROCEDURAL HISTORY
10, 2016, the Court issued a Minute Order Regarding Initial
Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement. Dkt.
7. In that order, the Court directed that the parties file a
Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan ("Joint
Status Report") not later than October 10, 2017,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and Local Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 (a).
Id. The Court further directed that Plaintiff serve
copies of the order on all parties who appeared after the
order was filed. Id. The Court directed that
Plaintiff would be responsible for starting the
communications needed to comply with the minute order.
the Defendants have appeared and there is no evidence in the
record that they have been served with a summons and
complaint. No Joint Status Report has been filed.
October 11, 2017, Plaintiff was ordered to either file a
Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan or show
cause, if any he has, in writing, why this case should not be
dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 (f)(1) and
37 (b)(2)(A)(v). Dkt. 10.
October 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant pleading. Dkt.
14. It is not signed by any of the Defendants. Id.
In this October 26, 2017 pleading, Plaintiff moves for
appointment of counsel. Id. He also again asserts
that he was not given a "reasonable accommodation"
of being allowed to use the elevator to get his bike into his
basement apartment. Id. He complains that he is no
longer permitted on the property. Id.
to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), "[u]pon application
by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may
deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such
complainant...." In deciding whether to appoint counsel
in a Title VII case, the court assesses the applicant's
financial resources, efforts the applicant has already made
to secure counsel, and whether the claim has merit.
Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662
F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), the court may request an attorney to represent
any person unable to afford counsel. Under Section 1915, the
court may appoint counsel in exceptional circumstances.
Franklin v. Murphy,745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir.
1984). To find exceptional circumstances, the court must
evaluate the ...