United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.
a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff is proceeding with this action pro
se and in forma pauperis. Before the Court are
several motions filed by plaintiff: (1) motion requesting
copies of all documents related to this case (“motion
for copies”) (Dkt. 20) and (2) motion to consolidate
and add exhibit to complaint (“motion to
consolidate”) (Dkt. 22); (3) motion to appoint counsel
(Dkt. 33); and (4) motion for extension of time to respond to
future court orders due to Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department tampering with mail (“motion for
extension”). Plaintiff also requests a status update.
Dkts. 22, 32, 35.
Court denies plaintiff's motion for copies (Dkt. 20) and
his renewed request for copies in his motion to consolidate
(Dkt. 22). The Court grants plaintiff's request for a
status update (Dkts. 22, 32). The Court denies
plaintiff's duplicative motion to consolidate as moot
(Dkt. 22). The Court denies plaintiff's motion to appoint
counsel (Dkt. 33) without prejudice. The Court denies
plaintiff's motion for extension (Dkt. 35) without
Motion for Copies (Dkts. 20, 22)
10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for copies, wherein he
requests copies of all documents related to this case. Dkt.
20. Plaintiff states that he has been moved from the
Washington Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and
placed in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff alleges that he is no longer
in possession of his legal documents relating to this case.
Dkt. 20. In the motion to consolidate, plaintiff renewed his
request for copies. Dkt. 22.
receive copies from the Court, the requesting party must pay
$0.50 per page. As plaintiff has not provided the necessary
payment, his motion for copies (Dkt. 20) is denied. The Court
also denies plaintiff's renewed request for copies in his
motion to consolidate (Dkt. 22). The Clerk's Office is
directed to send plaintiff copies of the Court's fee
schedule and the copying charge letter.
Request for Status Update (Dkts. 22, 32, 35)
requests a status update on his pending case. Dkts. 22, 32,
35. Plaintiff's request is granted. The Clerk is directed
to provide plaintiff with a copy of the docket sheet in the
instant action, which will include any pending motions.
Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 22)
is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in two separate civil actions in this district, both filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging violations of
his civil rights. See Wallace v. Pierce County
Sheriff's Department, et al., No.
3:19-cv-5329-RBL-DWC (“Wallace I”);
Wallace v. Longano et. al, No. 3:19-cv-05330-RJB-JRC
(“Wallace II”). Plaintiff requests that
every document he has provided to the Court be shared between
his two pending cases, Wallace I and Wallace
II. Dkt. 22. The Court interprets this request as a
motion to consolidate this action with a separate action
filed by plaintiff. See Dkt. 22; See also
to Local Rule 42, if a party seeks to have its case
consolidated with one or more pending cases in this district,
a motion to consolidate should be filed in the earliest filed
case, with a notice of the motion filed in the later filed
case. Magistrate Judge David W. Christel denied
plaintiff's motion to consolidate in Wallace I,
the earliest filed case. See Dkt. 23 (Notice of
order denying motion to consolidate in No. 3:19-cv-05329-
RBL-DWC); See also No. 3:19-cv-05329- RBL-DWC at
Dkt. 24. Because plaintiff's motion to consolidate has
been denied in the earliest filed case, the undersigned
denies the duplicative motion to consolidate (Dkt. 22) filed
in this case as moot.
Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 33)
moves for the court to “reconsider” the
appointment of counsel. Dkt. 33. However, this is the first
motion for appointment of counsel filed in this case,
therefore, the Court interprets this as a motion to appoint
counsel, not as a motion for reconsideration. See
is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a §
1983 civil action, and whether to appoint counsel is within
this Court's discretion. Storseth v. Spellman,
654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United States v.
$292, 888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th
Cir. 1995). Appointment of counsel for indigent civil
litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) requires
“exceptional circumstances.” See Rand v.
Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing
former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1996)), overruled on
other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (1998). To decide whether
exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate
“both ‘the likelihood of success on the merits
[and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal