United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON MOTIONS AND ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's May 31, 2019
“Response to the Court Order and Motion for
Continuance.” Dkt. 10. The Court has considered the May
31, 2019 pleading and the remainder of the file herein.
November 29, 2018, Plaintiff, a pro se, filed the
IFP application (Dkt. 1) and proposed civil complaint (Dkt.
1-1). The Plaintiff's IFP application was denied. Dkt. 2.
The Plaintiff paid the filing fee and his Complaint was
filed. Dkt. 3. The Complaint references several federal
statutes and the U.S. Constitution. Dkt. 3. It alleges that
the Plaintiff worked for Lockheed Martin, or an affiliate, in
the United Arab Emirates, and at some point, filed a labor
dispute claim. Id. Plaintiff asserts that his
employment was improperly terminated, he was denied certain
benefits, and was forced to engage in litigation in the
United Arab Emirates. Id. Plaintiff further asserts
that General Dynamics Corp did nothing to transfer
Plaintiff's work visa in the United Arab Emirates and
blocked his continued employment on a federal contract and on
other federal contracts. Id. The Plaintiff maintains
that the Department of Defense Inspector General refused to
properly investigate his complaint and termination.
Id. As a consequence of all the Defendants'
actions, the Plaintiff asserts that he was damaged.
6, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion for court-appointed
counsel was denied. Dkt. 9. (The original deadline to file
the JSR was April 11, 2019; the deadline was extended at the
Plaintiff's request to May 6, 2019.) His motion for an
extension of time to file the Joint Status Report and
Discovery Plan (“JSR”) was granted and the
deadline was reset to June 28, 2019. Id. The Court
further noted that, despite the having filed the case in
November of 2018, there was no evidence that the Defendants
had been served with a copy of the summons and complaint in
accord with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Id. The Plaintiff was
ordered to either file proof of service of the Defendants or
show cause, if any he has, in writing, why this case should
not be dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 (m)
by May 31, 2019.
May 31, 2019 pleading, the Plaintiff moves for
reconsideration of the decision denying him court-appointed
counsel. Dkt. 10. He further states that he “has
forwarded the summons to the defendants and hereby certifies
proof of service with tracking numbers
9510816200929149160096, 9510816200929149160102, and
9510816200929149160119.” Id. He again asks for
an extension of time to file the JSR. Id. Plaintiff
did not sign this pleading.
Defendants have not appeared.
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
Rule W.D. Wash. 7 (h) provides:
(1) Standard. Motions for reconsideration are
disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in
the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which
could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
(2) Procedure and Timing. A motion for
reconsideration shall be plainly labeled as such. The motion
shall be filed within fourteen days after the order to which
it relates is filed. The motion shall be noted for
consideration for the day it is filed. The motion shall point
out with specificity the matters which the movant believes
were overlooked or misapprehended by the court, any new
matters being brought to the court's attention for the
first time, and the particular modifications being sought in
the court's prior ruling. Failure to comply with this
subsection may be grounds for denial of the motion. The
pendency of a motion for reconsideration shall not stay
discovery or any other procedure.
pursuant 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 likelihood of success on the merits
and the ability of the petitioner to articulate the claims
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal
issues involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954
(9th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the decision
denying his application for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 10)
should be denied. He has failed to point to “manifest
error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal
authority which could not have been brought to [the
Court's] attention earlier with reasonable
diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Further, the motion is
untimely, the May 31, 2019 pleading was filed more than 14
days after the May 6, 2019 Order. The May 6, 2019 Order's
findings and reasoning should be adopted and the motion for
TO SERVE THE DEFENDANTS. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (c),
“Service, ” provides:
(1) In General. A summons must be served
with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible
for having the summons and complaint served within the time
allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary ...