Elaine Michelle Krejci, on behalf of Peter Gregory Krejci v. Donnell Tanksley, Jane Boman

W.D. Washington

Elaine Michelle Krejci, on behalf of Peter Gregory Krejci v. Donnell Tanksley, Jane Boman

DecidedNovember 4, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00322

StatusUnknown

This text of Elaine Michelle Krejci, on behalf of Peter Gregory Krejci v. Donnell Tanksley, Jane Boman (Elaine Michelle Krejci, on behalf of Peter Gregory Krejci v. Donnell Tanksley, Jane Boman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elaine Michelle Krejci, on behalf of Peter Gregory Krejci v. Donnell Tanksley, Jane Boman, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ELAINE MICHELLE KREJCI, on behalf of CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00322-JHC 8 PETER GREGORY KREJCI, ORDER 9 Plaintiff,

10 v.

11 DONNELL TANKSLEY, JANE BOMAN,

12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff’s 15 Letter in response. Dkt. ## 15, 16. Having reviewed the case file and the Letter, the Court 16 determines that good cause exists to extend the time for service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an additional 30 days to: (1) properly serve 18 Defendants with a summons and a copy of the complaint; and (2) file the appropriate proof of 19 service documentation with the Court. 20 In granting Plaintiff additional time, the Court recommends that Plaintiff review the rules 21 governing service in the Western District of Washington—Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 22 4 and Local Civil Rule 4—as well as the instructions and resources provided by the Western 23 24 1 District of Washington to pro se plaintiffs on this topic.' The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff, on any 2 || proof of service document she files with the Court, to clearly indicate what method of service 3 was used. 4 As for Plaintiffs request for a lawyer, see Dkt. # 16, the Court notes that there is no right 5 || to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). A court 6 || may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only if there 7 || are “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. g || 2004). As the Court does not find “exceptional circumstances” here, it declines Plaintiff's 9 request to “reconsider assigning a lawyer to [her].” See Dkt. # 16. 10 Dated this 4th day of November, 2025. 1 c ] obs 4. Char 12 John H. Chun United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ! The “Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit in Federal Court,” which contains a section on woe, and other resources can be found here: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ELAINE MICHELLE KREJCI, on behalf of CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00322-JHC 8 PETER GREGORY KREJCI, ORDER 9 Plaintiff,

10 v.

11 DONNELL TANKSLEY, JANE BOMAN,

12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s Order to Show Cause and Plaintiff’s 15 Letter in response. Dkt. ## 15, 16. Having reviewed the case file and the Letter, the Court 16 determines that good cause exists to extend the time for service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an additional 30 days to: (1) properly serve 18 Defendants with a summons and a copy of the complaint; and (2) file the appropriate proof of 19 service documentation with the Court. 20 In granting Plaintiff additional time, the Court recommends that Plaintiff review the rules 21 governing service in the Western District of Washington—Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 22 4 and Local Civil Rule 4—as well as the instructions and resources provided by the Western 23 24 1 District of Washington to pro se plaintiffs on this topic.' The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff, on any 2 || proof of service document she files with the Court, to clearly indicate what method of service 3 was used. 4 As for Plaintiffs request for a lawyer, see Dkt. # 16, the Court notes that there is no right 5 || to counsel in civil actions. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 1998). A court 6 || may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but only if there 7 || are “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. g || 2004). As the Court does not find “exceptional circumstances” here, it declines Plaintiff's 9 request to “reconsider assigning a lawyer to [her].” See Dkt. # 16. 10 Dated this 4th day of November, 2025. 1 c ] obs 4. Char 12 John H. Chun United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ! The “Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit in Federal Court,” which contains a section on woe, and other resources can be found here: https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Elaine Michelle Krejci, on behalf of Peter Gregory Krejci v. Donnell Tanksley, Jane Boman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elaine-michelle-krejci-on-behalf-of-peter-gregory-krejci-v-donnell-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack