Alan Adams v. King County et al.

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ALAN ADAMS, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02256-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 KING COUNTY ET AL., 11 Defendants. 12 13 1. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Alan Adams moves for disability accommodations and separately 15 asks that he be permitted to file his response to Defendants’ pending motion to 16 dismiss late. Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, and 37. The Court DENIES Adams’s motions for 17 disability accommodations, but allows him additional time to file his response to the 18 pending motion to dismiss. 19 2. DISCUSSION 20 Adams’s first motion for disability accommodations requests that the Court 21 appoint counsel as a disability accommodation. Dkt. No. 36. Neither the Americans 22 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) nor the Rehabilitation Act apply to the federal courts. 23 1 Holiwell v. City of Seattle et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00720-LK, 2026 WL 689153, at *3 2 (W.D. Wash. March 11, 2026) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)–(b);

3 Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App’x 804, 806 (9th Cir. 2012); Davis v. 4 Am. Express Prepaid Card Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00591-MJS, 2017 WL 5 1398851, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017) (“[T]he Rehabilitation Act does not apply to 6 the federal courts: it only covers Executive agencies, the United States Postal 7 Service, and certain categories of programs and activities receiving Federal 8 funding.”)).

9 Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has not recognized a constitutional right to have 10 counsel appointed in a civil case. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th 11 Cir. 1980). To the extent Adams argues that he must be afforded counsel under the 12 Fifth Amendment as a disability accommodation, Adams cites no legal authority to 13 support that argument. Accordingly, the Court rejects it. Saevik v. Swedish Med. 14 Ctr., Case No. C19-1992-JCC, 2021 WL 5918595, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2021) 15 (quoting Cyntegra, Inc. v. IDEXX Lab’ys, Inc., 322 F. App’x 569, 571 n.2 (9th Cir.

16 2009)) (Courts “need not consider allegations ‘unsupported by citations to the record 17 or legal authority.’”). 18 While the Court may request an attorney to represent any person who is 19 unable to afford counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Adams is not indigent or 20 proceeding in forma pauperis under that statute. Nor has Adams demonstrated that 21 he is unable to retain counsel through his own resources. His filings demonstrate a

22 capacity to articulate his positions to the Court. Even construing Adams’s request 23 as one under the District’s Amended Plan for Pro Se Litigant Representation in 1 Civil Rights Actions (General Order 07-23), Adams has not satisfied the threshold 2 criteria for appointment, including a showing that he is unable to retain counsel by

3 other means. See General Order 07-23, §§ 2(e), 3(b). Accordingly, Adams has not 4 shown that he is entitled to have the Court request an attorney to represent him as 5 a disability accommodation or otherwise. 6 Adams’s second motion for disability accommodations requests the following 7 accommodations: (1) “Extended Deadlines for All Filings,” (2) “Modified Scheduling 8 and Procedural Flexibility,” (3) “Permission to Use Assistive Aids and Court

9 Support Persons,” and (4) “Appointment of Counsel as an Accommodation.” Dkt. No. 10 37 at 4–5. As explained above, neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act apply to 11 federal courts, and Adams cites no legal authority to support his Fifth Amendment 12 argument. 13 The Court also notes that Adams’s accommodation requests are vague and 14 untethered to any specific deadline, hearing, or litigation task. For example, he asks 15 for extended deadlines for “All Filings,” without identifying the Court’s standard

16 deadlines under the Local Civil Rules or explaining how much additional time he 17 would require. The Court declines to grant such broad, prospective relief. However, 18 the Court will consider specific requests for accommodations as they arise in 19 connection with particular deadlines, hearings, or other litigation events. 20 Finally, Adams requests additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion to 21 dismiss. The Court finds good cause to extend the requested deadline by

22 FOURTEEN (14) days. The Court notes that Adams has had more than three 23 1 months to respond at this point, so an additional two weeks should be more than

9 || sufficient.

3 3. CONCLUSION

4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Adams’s motions for disability 5 accommodations, Dkt. Nos. 36 and 37, are DENIED and that his motion for leave to

G file late, Dkt. No. 35, is GRANTED IN PART. Adams must file his response to the

7 pending motion to dismiss by March 30, 2026. Any reply is due on April 6, 2026.

8 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to RENOTE the motion to dismiss, Dkt.

9 No. 32, for April 6, 2026.

10 11 Dated this 16th day of March, 2026.

12 13 C Baw N. Whitehead United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23