Taylor v. Crisham

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE AUBREY TAYLOR, CASE NO. C23-1717-JCC Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. SARA BLOND, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.

16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s filing titled “Emergency Request of the Court” (Dkt. No. 36). Within it, Plaintiff complains about his inability to litigate the case due to his incarceration, but otherwise fails to articulate any specific relief he seeks from the Court. (See generally id.) Moreover, to the extent he does request specific relief, Plaintiff still fails to provide a proper basis for his requests. For instance, Plaintiff requests that all court documents sent to him be stamped with “a legal mail notice” on the outside envelope. (Id. at 1.) However, “[m]ail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Keenan v. 24 Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996). As court documents are not “legal mail,” the Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s request that the Court stamp “legal mail” on the outside envelope of Court mailings. Similarly, Plaintiff “asks the court to appoint civil counsel in this matter as soon as possible.” (Id. at 4.) However, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, nor has he articulated “exceptional circumstances” that warrant appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). As such, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel.

6 Finally, Plaintiff seeks an “[e]xtension of time due to compelling circumstances,” yet does not specify for what deadline he seeks the extension. (See id. at 2.) Nevertheless, given that objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable David W. Christel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, were due on September 30, 2024, (see generally Dkt. No. 35), which is the same day Plaintiff appears to have mailed out his “emergency request,” (see Dkt. No. 36 at 5), the Court will construe Plaintiff’s submission as a motion for an extension of time to object to the R&R. The Court GRANTS the motion. The date by which Plaintiff must file his objections to Judge Christel’s R&R is hereby extended from September 30, 2024, to October 28, 2024. The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-note Judge Christel’s R&R (Dkt. No. 35) to October 28, 2024.

15 DATED this 7th day of October 2024.

Ravi Subramanian Clerk of Court s/Kathleen Albert Deputy Clerk