Adams v. State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ALAN BRYAN ADAMS; A.A., a minor CASE NO. 2:25-1360-JHC child, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ “Amended Motion for Extension of Time, Appointment of Counsel, and Medical Accommodations.” Dkt. # 7. The Court has considered the motion, the rest of the file, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the Court rules as follows: Extension The request for a 45-day extension is GRANTED. The motion is dated August 1, 2025; days after that date is September 15, 2025. Thus, Plaintiff must file their amended complaint by September 15, 2025, or this matter will be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to meet the required pleading standard, the Court will dismiss the matter with prejudice. See Dkt. # 6.

3 Appointment of Counsel 4 The request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

5 There is no right to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). A court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only if there are “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). To determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers “the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate [their] claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”

11 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Plaintiffs have not shown that extraordinary circumstances warrant appointment of counsel: They appear able to articulate their claims pro se in light of the issues involved, and they do not demonstrate a likelihood of their claims’ success. See Dkt. # 6.

15 Medical Accommodations 16 This request is DENIED without prejudice. First, Plaintiffs cite GR 33 to support the request. Presumably, this is Washington State Court General Rule 33. But that state court rule does not apply to these federal proceedings. Second, the request no longer appears ripe. As stated above, the Court is granting the requested extension. As for the other requests, e.g., “to appear virtually or submit written materials in lieu of live hearings when symptoms flare,” such a situation has not yet arisen. Moreover, Plaintiff has not submitted any medical documentation to support the request.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated this 20th day of August, 2025. oka Chun 2 John H. Chun United States District Judge