Jason Ray Arnold v. Thurston County, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-06067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JASON RAY ARNOLD, CASE NO. 3:25-CV-6067-JNW-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS 12 MOTIONS THURSTON COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate 16 Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff Jason Ray Arnold, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 17 initiated this case on November 26, 2025. See Dkts. 1, 4. Currently pending before the Court are 18 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 13), motion to complete service (Dkt. 14), 19 and motion to temporarily delay proceedings (Dkt. 17). After reviewing the relevant record, 20 Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED for the reasons explained below. 21 I. Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 13) 22 Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel on April 2, 2026. Dkt. 13. There is no 23 constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 1983 action. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 24 1 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th 2 Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory”). A 3 district court may appoint voluntary counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(e)(1), but only in “exceptional circumstances.” Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th

5 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether 6 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court evaluates “the likelihood of success on the merits 7 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 8 legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting 9 Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). Therefore, to show exceptional 10 circumstances warranting appointment of counsel, a plaintiff must plead facts showing he has (1) 11 an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and (2) an inadequate ability to 12 articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 13 (9th Cir. 2004). 14 In his motion, Plaintiff requests court-appointed counsel because he has limited resources

15 and literacy. Dkt. 13. He states another inmate has been helping him with his filings. Id. At this 16 time, Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the Court find, this case involves complex facts or law. In 17 addition, Plaintiff has not shown an inability to articulate the factual basis of his claims in an 18 understandable manner. Rather, Plaintiff’s filings thus far demonstrate he is able to articulate his 19 requests in a way that is understandable to the Court. While Plaintiff may be able to better 20 litigate this case with appointed counsel, that fact alone does not establish exceptional 21 circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525; Wilborn, 789 22 F.2d at 1331. Because Plaintiff has not shown appointment of counsel is appropriate at this time, 23 his motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 13) is denied without prejudice.

24 1 II. Motion to Complete Service (Dkt. 14) 2 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to complete service on Defendants Omnicare, CVS, 3 Trident Care, and Interpath Labratory. Dkt. 14. 4 On March 4, 2026, the Court directed service of Plaintiff’s complaint on Defendants

5 Thurston County, Miguel Balderrama, Nicole Kinney, Mary, Stewarth, Schryver, Omnicare, 6 CVS, Trident Care, and Interpath Labratory by first class mail at the address specified in the 7 complaint. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff’s complaint listed one address for most of the named Defendants but 8 indicated the addresses for Defendants Omnicare, CVS, Trident Care, and Interpath Labratory 9 were “unknown.” Dkt. 7. On March 23, 2026, Defendants Thurston County, Nicole Kinney, and 10 Holli Stewart (“the County Defendants”) appeared through counsel and filed waivers of service. 11 Dkts. 10, 11. As of the date of this order, the docket shows the remaining Defendants have not 12 appeared or filed waivers of service. 13 On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion stating he had not received waivers of service 14 from Defendants Omnicare, CVS, Trident Care, and Interpath Labratory, and requesting the

15 Court complete service on these Defendants. Dkt. 14. The Court directed the County Defendants 16 to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 15. The County Defendants indicated the address Plaintiff 17 listed in the complaint was appropriate to effect service on Thurston County but is not the correct 18 address for Defendants Omnicare, CVS, Trident Care, and Interpath Labratory. Dkt. 16. 19 Even when proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff bears the burden of providing 20 accurate and sufficient information to effect service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th 21 Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. At this time, Plaintiff has not provided information that is 22 sufficient for the Court to accomplish service on Defendants Omnicare, CVS, Trident Care, and 23 Interpath Labratory. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to complete service on these Defendants

24 1 (Dkt. 14) is denied. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Court with addresses at which these 2 Defendants may be served, the Court may recommend dismissal of Defendants Omnicare, CVS, 3 Trident Care, and Interpath Labratory from this case. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22 (when 4 Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of

5 the summons and complaint, it is appropriate for the Court to sua sponte dismiss the unserved 6 Defendant). 7 III. Motion to Temporarily Delay Proceedings (Dkt. 17) 8 Finally, Plaintiff filed a motion to temporarily delay proceedings on April 22, 2026. Dkt. 9 17. He requests the Court delay all proceedings in this matter for 90 days or longer because he is 10 being transferred to another facility, which he says will limit his access to legal materials and 11 impair his ability to respond to any motions filed during that time. Id. The County Defendants do 12 not object to the motion. Dkt. 18. 13 At this time, there are no pending motions on the docket to which Plaintiff must respond. 14 Plaintiff has not shown a stay of proceedings is appropriate or necessary. If Plaintiff needs extra

15 time to respond to a specific filing in the future, he may seek an extension or a stay at that time. 16 IV. Advisory to Plaintiff 17 In their response to Plaintiff’s motion for delay, the County Defendants object to 18 Plaintiff’s use of race-based stereotypes in his argument. Dkt. 18. The Local Rules make clear 19 that proceedings in this Court “must be free from prejudice and bias in any form” and “[t]he duty 20 to be respectful of others includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that can 21 reasonably be interpreted as manifesting prejudice or bias toward another on the basis of 22 categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or sexual orientation.” Local 23 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 1(d).

24 1 Plaintiff is advised that derogatory language will not be tolerated by the Court, and any 2 future filings that do not maintain the civility and professionalism required by the Local Rules 3 will be stricken without further consideration. 4 V. Conclusion

5 For the reasons above, the Court ORDERS: 6 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 13) is DENIED without prejudice; 7 (2) Plaintiff’s motion to complete service (Dkt. 14) is DENIED; 8 (3) Plaintiff’s motion to temporarily delay proceedings (Dkt. 17) is DENIED. 9 Dated this 27th day of May, 2026. 10 A 11 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24