Joseph L. Jones v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Jenna Knox, John/Jane Does 1–10

W.D. Washington

Joseph L. Jones v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Jenna Knox, John/Jane Does 1–10

DecidedOctober 21, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01696

StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph L. Jones v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Jenna Knox, John/Jane Does 1–10 (Joseph L. Jones v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Jenna Knox, John/Jane Does 1–10) 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

Joseph L. Jones v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Jenna Knox, John/Jane Does 1–10, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOSEPH L. JONES, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01696-KKE-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, SEALING EXHIBITS TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT 12 OF CORRECTIONS, JENNA KNOX, JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10, 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 15 the Washington State Department of Corrections and others on September 4, 2025. Dkt. 1. 16 Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel on September 5, 2025. Dkt. 9. Having 17 considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds and ORDERS: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel, Dkt. 9, is DENIED. A person 19 filing a civil lawsuit generally has no right to counsel. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 20 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant, but only under 21 “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 22 Cir. 2004). To assess whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers the 23 likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se given 1 the complexity of the legal issues. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff 2 argues the case raises “complex constitutional issues” and that he is indigent. Dkt. 9. However, 3 Plaintiff has filed a number of motions in this action, and has thus far been able to articulate his 4 claims for relief and appears capable of presenting his case.

5 2. The exhibits to Plaintiff’s complaint contain a number of unredacted or partially 6 unredacted personal data identifiers distributed throughout. Because the exhibits are voluminous, 7 the Court ORDERS that the entirety of the attachments to Dkt. 1 and the attachments to Dkt. 8 8 shall be SEALED. For the purpose of any future filings, Plaintiff is reminded that Local Civil 9 Rule 5.2 requires parties to redact certain personal data identifiers from all documents filed with 10 the court, including state court records. 11 3. The Clerk is directed to update the case caption to add Defendant State of 12 Washington, which is named in the original complaint but omitted on the Court’s docket. 13 DATED this 21st day of October, 2025. 14 A

15 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23

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 8 JOSEPH L. JONES, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01696-KKE-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, SEALING EXHIBITS TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT 12 OF CORRECTIONS, JENNA KNOX, JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10, 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 15 the Washington State Department of Corrections and others on September 4, 2025. Dkt. 1. 16 Plaintiff filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel on September 5, 2025. Dkt. 9. Having 17 considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds and ORDERS: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel, Dkt. 9, is DENIED. A person 19 filing a civil lawsuit generally has no right to counsel. See Campbell v. Burt, 141 F.3d 927, 931 20 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant, but only under 21 “exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th 22 Cir. 2004). To assess whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the Court considers the 23 likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se given 1 the complexity of the legal issues. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff 2 argues the case raises “complex constitutional issues” and that he is indigent. Dkt. 9. However, 3 Plaintiff has filed a number of motions in this action, and has thus far been able to articulate his 4 claims for relief and appears capable of presenting his case.

5 2. The exhibits to Plaintiff’s complaint contain a number of unredacted or partially 6 unredacted personal data identifiers distributed throughout. Because the exhibits are voluminous, 7 the Court ORDERS that the entirety of the attachments to Dkt. 1 and the attachments to Dkt. 8 8 shall be SEALED. For the purpose of any future filings, Plaintiff is reminded that Local Civil 9 Rule 5.2 requires parties to redact certain personal data identifiers from all documents filed with 10 the court, including state court records. 11 3. The Clerk is directed to update the case caption to add Defendant State of 12 Washington, which is named in the original complaint but omitted on the Court’s docket. 13 DATED this 21st day of October, 2025. 14 A

15 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph L. Jones v. State of Washington, Washington State Department of Corrections, Jenna Knox, John/Jane Does 1–10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-l-jones-v-state-of-washington-washington-state-department-of-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack